Effect of US losing a War to Chile in 1885

, the events and timetables are suspicious to say the least
no one else seems to think so, but whatever. In any event, the POD is going to be looked at as nothing but sheer aggression by Chile. At this point in time, note that the UK was the one who had the proprietary rights to digging a canal, so the US had scant reason to occupy the place. At this time, it hadn't even been decided if Nicaragua or Panama was the better place to dig the canal. For that matter, it still wasn't decided even by the time TR got around to doing it; Panama was chosen at the last minute due to financing agreements or something (don't recall exactly at the moment), and the whole US backing of Panamanian rebels was because Columbia did something to irk TR (never a good idea)…
 


OK to your question:


For the USA

- the protected Cruises commissioned after the 1886, get easily doubled, But at the same Token, Chile Will probably Forbid the sail for the Magellan and drake Passage, which will give a serious bump to the California Shipyards and Dry docks.

- A more obvious Support to Peru and Bolivia with the intention to maintain both countries as Chile´s enemy

- In the long run a mayor expansion in the Navy an Probably a Earlier Spanish-USA war(no later than 1890) if only to reaffirm themselves in his place under the sun

- a more Aggressive political and military Expansion by the USA and trying to diplomatically force Chilean hand, situation that they will do eventually,

-The cease fire between Chile and USA was understated by the USA as a time to remake their Navy for a Colombian War 2.0, as the blow was more a "we don´t have any more ship to send to the war" than a serious defeat of the USA.

-If Cleveland can spin the war as a Something imposed to him by the previous government policies, he was a notorious isolationist, that he in his short stay in the White house, the crisis took place barely a month after he took office, was impossibility to stop, his legacy will be maintained, as long as he support a expansion of the navy.

-Direct Intervention of USA troops in any future Panama Independence war.

For Chile

- Election of Balmaceda, and a support of his plan to expand the public expense as Chile now have a powerful enemy in the north.

- By the Same token NO 1891 Chilean Civil war, as the war was about public expenses and with a now more clear and justifiable threat is easier to open the purse, specially because the war was not a easy win, and the money will come from the tariff to the Saltpeter exportation.

- Probably a new European mission with the intention to attract colonist to Chile to develop the southern place

- Public expense to develop a national shipyard industry.

- Distrust of USA capital and preference of European Capital, probably England, Germany and France, in that order.
 
no one else seems to think so, but whatever. In any event, the POD is going to be looked at as nothing but sheer aggression by Chile. At this point in time, note that the UK was the one who had the proprietary rights to digging a canal, so the US had scant reason to occupy the place. At this time, it hadn't even been decided if Nicaragua or Panama was the better place to dig the canal. For that matter, it still wasn't decided even by the time TR got around to doing it; Panama was chosen at the last minute due to financing agreements or something (don't recall exactly at the moment), and the whole US backing of Panamanian rebels was because Columbia did something to irk TR (never a good idea)…

It´s not, the Aggression was the USA disembarking troops in a sovereign nation invoking a treaty, that said invaded nation qualified and unjust and illegal use of the treaty, but whatever the USA have long propagandist history of say they were always in the right even in case when they were obvious and brutal the aggresor.

And you must want to review your sources, the proprietary rights to digging a canal, was in France Hands since 1879, and largely being developed by french capital and interest since 1881, the fact that the canal was in french hands was a point of Political Tension between USA and France, France was worried that the USA intervention in PAnama will render his investment lost.
 
It´s not, the Aggression was the USA disembarking troops in a sovereign nation invoking a treaty, that said invaded nation qualified and unjust and illegal use of the treaty, but whatever the USA have long propagandist history of say they were always in the right even in case when they were obvious and brutal the aggresor.

And you must want to review your sources, the proprietary rights to digging a canal, was in France Hands since 1879, and largely being developed by french capital and interest since 1881, the fact that the canal was in french hands was a point of Political Tension between USA and France, France was worried that the USA intervention in PAnama will render his investment lost.

He’s talking about how the US views the Chilean action, and they would view it as aggression. Whether or not the original intervention was justified is completely irrelevant to that point.
 
One effect of a conflict with Chile and Columbia in 1885 over Panama might be a sooner push for a canal to link Atl and Pac.

USA would join Britain and France for an international canal.

This canal could be in Panama or Nicaragraga. Might even see USA investment in Mexico for a rail system that could transport a ship from Atlantic to Pacific. James B. Eads wanted to engineer a rail system like this.

USA would not loose war in long run. American steel mills would be churning out ship armor in short time.

USA would enlist Peru and Bolivia for Pacific War , round 2.

Panama ends up independent. USA obtains Easter Island from Chile.

USA naval presence in Pacific increases.

Mare island in San Fran Bay becomes a ship building center on the Pacific.
 
It´s not, the Aggression was the USA disembarking troops in a sovereign nation invoking a treaty, that said invaded nation qualified and unjust and illegal use of the treaty, but whatever the USA have long propagandist history of say they were always in the right even in case when they were obvious and brutal the aggresor.
the US does indeed have a long and heinous history of intervention in LA, but the incident mentioned in the OP doesn't really seem to be all that much... in fact, it was such a minor affair that none of my history books on the time even mention it, had to go looking online to find out about it... and there isn't a whole lot of info on it out there. But every source I read agrees that annexation wasn't a goal. And, weirdly enough, the Marines seemed to be siding with Columbia in suppressing the rebels... all of it done mainly to keep US rights to transit across the isthmus intact. And all the sources agree that the situation had already been resolved before the Esmerelda arrived, and the Marines were preparing to leave anyway. In any event, with this POD here, the US public is going to see it as a blatant act of aggression...
And you must want to review your sources, the proprietary rights to digging a canal, was in France Hands since 1879, and largely being developed by french capital and interest since 1881, the fact that the canal was in french hands was a point of Political Tension between USA and France, France was worried that the USA intervention in PAnama will render his investment lost.
ah, you're right (had to go looking online for it again). Apparently, what McKinley negotiated with the Brits was a new treaty, where the Brits wouldn't insist on having equal control over a future Panama Canal with the USA (it seems that an earlier treaty they'd signed gave both sides equal control)…
 
One effect of a conflict with Chile and Columbia in 1885 over Panama might be a sooner push for a canal to link Atl and Pac.

France was digging The Canal since 1879, as a National pride question

USA would join Britain and France for an international canal..
USA and UK we're invited to The first project Championed by The French, but The USA delegation decided yo abstain themselves of The final project

This canal could be in Panama or Nicaragraga. Might even see USA investment in Mexico for a rail system that could transport a ship from Atlantic to Pacific. James B. Eads wanted to engineer a rail system like this.
The canal was being constructed in Panamá in this epoch as bein The most feasible of the plains
USA would not loose war in long run. American steel mills would be churning out ship armor in short time
In The long run? Absolutelly, The Question Is, Will The American electorate await The four to five years that Will take to build a new navy capable to reach chilean coast? During The aislasionist goverment of Cleveland?

USA would enlist Peru and Bolivia for Pacific War , round 2.
They Will try, but Chile was occuping Lima until 1883, most of the Peruvian goverment was Alive because they were Pro-Chilean, And Bolivia was in a civil war period (again) I doubt USA could muster too much support

Panama ends up independent. USA obtains Easter Island from Chile
Eastern Island was mot Claimed by Chile until 1889, and The Island was a Barred rock With barely 101 inhabitans, of wich 12 were adult males. The USA could Claimed ir only asking but demmed The Island too unimportan and far away. If anything with the victory Chile Will try to Claim it sooner
USA naval presence in Pacific increases.
But of course

Mare island in San Fran Bay becomes a ship building center on the Pacific.
If anything this happen sooner than in OTL
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
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.

Dumb question- were all these ships in the Pacific. It doesn't matter so much if the Chilean ship is better if it is in the Pacific while the Americans are in the Caribbean.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
OK, in the short run, the US can get back at Chile indirectly, by blockading the Caribbean coast of Panama and Colombia, backing Panamanian separatists, at least unless the Colombians repudiate their alliance with Chile, and initiate fleet building and coastal defense, especially on the east coast.

The US will be more focused on the need to build an Ishmian canal sooner. Would France welcome American partnership in their project?

If the US is pushing the canal faster, hopefully they figure out more about the malaria-mosquito connection and uses of quinine faster. If not, the canal will be completed with greater loss of life.

The US will be more ornery and more prepared for the war with Spain, but I do not think the US will attack Spain in the early 1890s as another poster suggested because there was no renewed Cuban rebellion or Spanish atrocities at that time and America won’t attack just for grins.

There may be a somewhat higher chance for the US to fight Japan over Hawaii in the 90s.

As A potential ally, I guess a lot depends on if Argentinacanbe built up because Peru is occupied and Bolivia debilitated.
 
Dumb question- were all these ships in the Pacific. It doesn't matter so much if the Chilean ship is better if it is in the Pacific while the Americans are in the Caribbean.

The USS Shenodah Mentioned by @Agra were in the Pacific side, blocking Panamá City, the USS Tennessee and USS Galena were The Caribbean, The Esmeralda also transported a Marine Batallion veteran of The Pacific War.

OK, in the short run, the US can get back at Chile indirectly, by blockading the Caribbean coast of Panama and Colombia, backing Panamanian separatists, at least unless the Colombians repudiate their alliance with Chile, and initiate fleet building and coastal defense, especially on the east coast.

The Colombians Called Chile assistance in fear that The USA Will do exactly what áre you proposing. Why would The Colombian Government back off and alliance called for the specific case you propose?

The US will be more focused on the need to build an Ishmian canal sooner. Would France welcome American partnership in their project?
Yes and no.
Yeas because the canal need more money to being feasible and any injection of capital was well received, but only as USA private citizens, not a officially government backed on

The canal Construction was seeing in France as a National pride matter, so they will accept the USA only as a minor partner.

By the USA side of the things, they fell the France constructions of the Canal, was an improper meddling of an European Colonial powers in America, and was a source of diplomatic tension between both countries.

If the US is pushing the canal faster, hopefully they figure out more about the malaria-mosquito connection and uses of quinine faster. If not, the canal will be completed with greater loss of life.

In here I´m with you anything that is made in the progress of the sciences is a plus from my point of view.


The US will be more ornery and more prepared for the war with Spain, but I do not think the US will attack Spain in the early 1890s as another poster suggested because there was no renewed Cuban rebellion or Spanish atrocities at that time and America won’t attack just for grins.

The principal head of the Cuban independence movement and war of 1895, José Martí was Exiled in USA since 1880, his second exile in fact, and was trying his best in gather political and economic support in the USA to start a new Independent war in Cuba, After the Fail and Massacres of the Ten years war, and the Little war, he was in New York in fact. So a earlier USA-Spain war is in the table, with the right POD, as for example the loss of the USA-Chile War, lead to an USA need to affiance his grip over the Caribbean

There may be a somewhat higher chance for the US to fight Japan over Hawaii in the 90s.
Could it be, but a Doubt it, the most obvious result of the war will be a stronger and faster Build up of the USA pacific fleet.

As A potential ally, I guess a lot depends on if Argentinacanbe built up because Peru is occupied and Bolivia debilitated.
Argentina in this epoch have null interest in a exterior war, was content with the absorption of the Patagonia after the Conquest of the Desert (1870-1884) and was in the process of receive the bulk of their European immigration, so they were in little interest in have a war against Chile, specially because a lot of the Mapuche and Tehuelches displaced took refuge in Chile and were originally supplied by "rogue" Chilean army elements
 
Last edited:
regarding the US building a canal: I wonder if a slight change in timeframe means the canal is built in Nicaragua, which is (I think) the superior, and easier, site. Lobbying pressure by parties with financial interest in Panama is what led the canal to be built there.

If you have dueling canal construction, I wonder if national pride leads to greater support by either, or both, nation. a space race on land, so to speak.
 
OK, in the short run, the US can get back at Chile indirectly, by blockading the Caribbean coast of Panama and Colombia, backing Panamanian separatists, at least unless the Colombians repudiate their alliance with Chile, and initiate fleet building and coastal defense, especially on the east coast.
the situation is going to change from a minor intervention to a major incident. Technically, the US and Columbia had a treaty in 1846 where the US would maintain neutrality in the Panama region in exchange for transit rights across the isthmus (apparently, these transit companies/rights were regarded as important a logistics/economic link to the US as much as the canal would be later). The US intervention came around simply because Columbia had pulled troops out of Panama to deal with a rebellion elsewhere (poor Columbia, always fighting rebellion someplace), and the Panamanian rebels promptly took over Panama City. The US Marines occupied the place to keep their transit rights intact, Columbia put more troops back into Panama, and the Marines prepared to leave. Really not much of an incident so far.
Now, all of a sudden, the Esmerelda arrives and attacks/sinks a US ship, after everything had already been settled. You have to wonder just what Columbia is going to think of the whole incident. If they want to maintain good relations with the USA, they are going to have to repudiate this 'unnecessary attack by Chile'. OTOH, if they decide they don't want to do that, they could claim that the US violated the 1846 treaty and side wholeheartedly with Chile. Only in the latter case would you get the USN blockading Panama, etc. Columbia, however, is vulnerable in a way that Chile is not... their Atlantic coastline is very open to the USN, where Chile's Pacific coast is not. Thus, Columbia might not be so eager to join up with Chile... particularly when they are already fighting a rebellion or two at home and making money off those transit rights across Panama. I could see them trying to steer a neutral course where they don't piss off the US or Chile, dealing with their own problems....
 
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.
rereading this part, it occurs to me that the only way you are going to get this is if Columbia suffers a major loss to the rebels someplace else, so that they can't send troops back into Panama City... the US still wouldn't be intending to annex the place, but they are going to want to occupy enough of Panama to keep the transit rights intact... until Columbia gets it's act together and gets control of the isthmus again. In this case, the captain of the Esmerelda might (mistakenly) think that the US is planning to annex the place, and this gets us the POD needed. Columbia is still between a rock and a hard place, as they aren't going to want to irk either side, and have just suffered a loss, so they can't get troops back into Panama to get the US Marines out...
 
the situation is going to change from a minor intervention to a major incident. Technically, the US and Columbia had a treaty in 1846 where the US would maintain neutrality in the Panama region in exchange for transit rights across the isthmus (apparently, these transit companies/rights were regarded as important a logistics/economic link to the US as much as the canal would be later). The US intervention came around simply because Columbia had pulled troops out of Panama to deal with a rebellion elsewhere (poor Columbia, always fighting rebellion someplace), and the Panamanian rebels promptly took over Panama City. The US Marines occupied the place to keep their transit rights intact, Columbia put more troops back into Panama, and the Marines prepared to leave. Really not much of an incident so far.
Now, all of a sudden, the Esmerelda arrives and attacks/sinks a US ship, after everything had already been settled. You have to wonder just what Columbia is going to think of the whole incident. If they want to maintain good relations with the USA, they are going to have to repudiate this 'unnecessary attack by Chile'. OTOH, if they decide they don't want to do that, they could claim that the US violated the 1846 treaty and side wholeheartedly with Chile. Only in the latter case would you get the USN blockading Panama, etc. Columbia, however, is vulnerable in a way that Chile is not... their Atlantic coastline is very open to the USN, where Chile's Pacific coast is not. Thus, Columbia might not be so eager to join up with Chile... particularly when they are already fighting a rebellion or two at home and making money off those transit rights across Panama. I could see them trying to steer a neutral course where they don't piss off the US or Chile, dealing with their own problems....

Again the Colombian and Chilean Historiography coincide that the 1885 action of By the USA was a preamble to the 1904 intervention to make an independent Panama under the USA influence, and that the Colombian government feel threatened by the USA involvement and invasion of Panama, during the 1884-1885 Civil war, without offer first the assistance to the Colombian Government calling the 1846 Treaty without ask first hell even the Wikipedia pages of the Mallarino–Bidlack Treaty, are completely different, The English page speak about how the Colombian Government give to the USA "military powers to suppress social conflicts and independence struggles targeted against Colombia" situation that the Spanish page say is not the Case, and the USA must maintain neutrality and abstain to intervene in Panama, without the a previous consultation to the Colombian Government or request by the same.

If you read Spanish here the Colombian Perspective:

http://bdigital.binal.ac.pa/bdp/descarga.php?f=Los E.U y el robo de panama1.pdf (pdf Autodowload)
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
Again the Colombian and Chilean Historiography coincide that the 1885 action of By the USA was a preamble to the 1904 intervention to make an independent Panama under the USA influence, and that the Colombian government feel threatened by the USA involvement and invasion of Panama, during the 1884-1885 Civil war, without offer first the assistance to the Colombian Government calling the 1846 Treaty without ask first hell even the Wikipedia pages of the Mallarino–Bidlack Treaty, are completely different, The English page speak about how the Colombian Government give to the USA "military powers to suppress social conflicts and independence struggles targeted against Colombia" situation that the Spanish page say is not the Case, and the USA must maintain neutrality and abstain to intervene in Panama, without the a previous consultation to the Colombian Government or request by the same.

If you read Spanish here the Colombian Perspective:

http://bdigital.binal.ac.pa/bdp/descarga.php?f=Los E.U y el robo de panama1.pdf (pdf Autodowload)

Lo leere gracias
 
Again the Colombian and Chilean Historiography coincide that the 1885 action of By the USA was a preamble to the 1904 intervention to make an independent Panama under the USA influence, and that the Colombian government feel threatened by the USA involvement and invasion of Panama, during the 1884-1885 Civil war, without offer first the assistance to the Colombian Government calling the 1846 Treaty without ask first hell even the Wikipedia pages of the Mallarino–Bidlack Treaty, are completely different, The English page speak about how the Colombian Government give to the USA "military powers to suppress social conflicts and independence struggles targeted against Colombia" situation that the Spanish page say is not the Case, and the USA must maintain neutrality and abstain to intervene in Panama, without the a previous consultation to the Colombian Government or request by the same.

If you read Spanish here the Colombian Perspective:

http://bdigital.binal.ac.pa/bdp/descarga.php?f=Los E.U y el robo de panama1.pdf (pdf Autodowload)
Mr. Garcia Ortiz , the co writer of this book seems like an interesting individual.
Writer and journalist that was the director of a liberal-leaning newspaper founded by a military man, then minister during a conservative Government, and the man that signed the treaty that set definitive borders between Brazil and Colombia
 
Last edited:
The English page speak about how the Colombian Government give to the USA "military powers to suppress social conflicts and independence struggles targeted against Colombia" situation that the Spanish page say is not the Case, and the USA must maintain neutrality and abstain to intervene in Panama,
I really don't want to get into an argument about 'what the US intentions really were'... I'll note that the version of the treaty I read said that the US would be neutral in Panama in exchange for those transit rights... nothing about a US right to intervene. It seems to me that the US did indeed violate the treaty, but I doubt that annexation was the goal... mainly it was protection of those transit rights. Particularly since the US was willing to leave once the Columbians put troops back in there.

but...

the POD here is that the US does intend a long occupation, or even annexation. And the best way to do that is a general Columbian defeat by rebel forces somewhere, to the point that they cannot move troops back to Panama City. If the situation in Panama deteriorates to the point that the US transit rights are threatened to go down permanently, then the US occupation will be intended to be larger and longer. If the Columbian situation is bad enough, annexation might even be considered.

but....

at this point in time, the rights to dig the future canal still lie with France, and the UK still has a strong interest in the plan as well. Neither is going to like the idea of the US baldly annexing Panama, or even encouraging a rebellion to separate the region from Columbia... France is going to be particularly irked. And Columbia is still way more vulnerable than Chile is, and in this POD, suffering defeats at home. So, in this ATL, with a lost war, a very pissed off US public, a rather unhappy France and UK, and a Columbia that has to face the USN alone, the negotiations afterwards will be... interesting.
 
at this point in time, the rights to dig the future canal still lie with France, and the UK still has a strong interest in the plan as well. Neither is going to like the idea of the US baldly annexing Panama, or even encouraging a rebellion to separate the region from Columbia... France is going to be particularly irked. And Columbia is still way more vulnerable than Chile is, and in this POD, suffering defeats at home. So, in this ATL, with a lost war, a very pissed off US public, a rather unhappy France and UK, and a Columbia that has to face the USN alone, the negotiations afterwards will be... interesting.
But in your argument indicated that is possible that France an UK take a strong pressure on the USA so they support Colombia "national integrity". No? and the negotiations will be really interesting.
You think USA will pay war reparations?
 
But in your argument indicated that is possible that France an UK take a strong pressure on the USA so they support Colombia "national integrity". No? and the negotiations will be really interesting.
You think USA will pay war reparations?
France will demand that the US vacate the region (although they will also be likely to agree with the US that their transit rights must be secure), and the UK will remind the US that there is a treaty guaranteeing them equal sovereignty over any future canal (which is kinda weird, as France still has the rights to dig the canal). Reparations? I doubt it... in this POD, neither Chili nor Columbia has really suffered any losses from the US AFAICT. Plus, in the interests of getting a fast peace (something Chile has every interest in doing), it's likely that reparations won't even be discussed; the very idea will go over horribly with both the US public and Congress (who are likely to take the view that Chile jumped into a conflict they had no real interest in)…
but afterwards... the situation in Columbia becomes rather critical... they've already been hurt badly by rebellion, and if they don't get it together, then Panama might just effectively separate itself all on it's own. Then it gets interesting again...
 
France will demand that the US vacate the region (although they will also be likely to agree with the US that their transit rights must be secure), and the UK will remind the US that there is a treaty guaranteeing them equal sovereignty over any future canal (which is kinda weird, as France still has the rights to dig the canal). Reparations? I doubt it... in this POD, neither Chili nor Columbia has really suffered any losses from the US AFAICT. Plus, in the interests of getting a fast peace (something Chile has every interest in doing), it's likely that reparations won't even be discussed; the very idea will go over horribly with both the US public and Congress (who are likely to take the view that Chile jumped into a conflict they had no real interest in)…
but afterwards... the situation in Columbia becomes rather critical... they've already been hurt badly by rebellion, and if they don't get it together, then Panama might just effectively separate itself all on it's own. Then it gets interesting again...
No war reparations to Chile obvious, but to Colombia that,in this specific scenario we are speaking, it´s look like were the invaded country that Three different countries jumped to defend, a more symbolic gesture than anything else.
 
Top