Best way for the Confederation to last, is to have Peru form it as opposed to Bolivia. Santa took advantage of Peru's weakness to form the confederation with Bolivia. Bolivia at any other time was the weaker of the two.
If Peru becomes the centre of the Confederation instead, then the Confederation won't have to fight a two front war against Peru and Chile. As far as Argentina is concerned, they can't fight them. They simply aren't strong enough to take both Chile and Argentina. Try to separate them and you can keep the Confederation. It had a lot of support from it's population, just not a lot of international support.
Simple enough: have a TL where they win the War of the Confederation- perhaps one where the PBC don't have to fight a simultaneous war against the Argentians, allowing them to bring all of their forces to bear against the Chileans? Or if you want a more subtle solution, one where national boundaries remain largely unchanged, you could have a TL where the Chilean Congress adopts a more lenient stance in their initial negotiations, and Santa Cruz's agreement to all of the terms in the Chilean treaty other than the dissolution of the Peru-Bolivian Confederation is accepted as an acceptable resolution, with Chile never declaring war against the Confederation ITTL.
Alternatively, if you want to give it a bit of a wank, you could try strengthening it with an earlier POD- if the dissolution of Gran Columbia had taken place a couple of years earlier, prior to their war with Peru, might you have seen the inclusion of some of its successor states into the Confederacy? Ecuador seems realistic, if they gain the proportionate representation they never got in Gran Columbia; and Venezuela always supported a federalist arrangement in Gran Columbia, so entry into the Confederacy should have some appeal. Even the integration of New Granada shouldn't be impossible- with Bolivar having already been removed from power, his supporters won't be around to veto the federalist constitution and place him upon his dictatorial throne, as they did IOTL.
Bring them all together along with the New Grenadian Panama Territories, and the vastly expanded Confederacy (which obviously wouldn't be known as the Peru-Bolivian Confederacy any more- perhaps the 'Confederacy of Columbia' might be a more fitting name) could have the potential to become immensely powerful. Essentially, Latin America's own counterpart to the United States of America, with control over a larger population, a larger economy and a larger area than the fledgling USA did at this stage. ITTL, 'WI' could be whatever you want it to be- perhaps even usurping the USA's place IOTL as the world's sole superpower...
Yeah, i guess was the problem, beacuse many peruvian militars (including Castilla) fled to Chile and then return to battle the Confederation; if as you say, the Peruvian position was stronger, then it could have worked; however there was still the problem of the oligarquy., how to deal with them?Best way for the Confederation to last, is to have Peru form it as opposed to Bolivia. Santa took advantage of Peru's weakness to form the confederation with Bolivia. Bolivia at any other time was the weaker of the two.
If Peru becomes the centre of the Confederation instead, then the Confederation won't have to fight a two front war against Peru and Chile. As far as Argentina is concerned, they can't fight them. They simply aren't strong enough to take both Chile and Argentina. Try to separate them and you can keep the Confederation. It had a lot of support from it's population, just not a lot of international support.
As far as Argentina is concerned, they can't fight them. They simply aren't strong enough to take both Chile and Argentina.
It wouldn`t be better the southAmerican Confederation or the Andean Confederation; however there will be some problem still, just which is going to be the capital? Lima, Bogota, Cuzco? and also, even with the greta amount of resources, people and land; there was always a problem in my dear SouthAmerica: the presidents; so, in this case, an appropiated leader should be elected to lead this powerful country.
OK, in that point, so, where could it be that new city, in the center or with access to the coast?The things is, in all of these nations at the time, their working name for the continent of South America was Columbia- the nation we now know as Columbia was still New Granada at the time. South American Confederacy, Columbian Confederacy- it'd just be the same thing to them. If it did extend to Venezuela and Panama, it wouldn't be Andean. As for the potentially divisive issue of which city should serve as its capital- couldn't they just follow the example of the USA, founding a new city to serve as the expanded Confederacy's new capital? The Confederacy of Columbia's own District of Columbia?