Bolivia annexing Southern panhandle of Peru

[Metro]

How can we get Bolivia to annex the Peruvian Panhandle between 1826 and the War of the Pacific in 1879.

Some real info on this:

It seems the extreme Southern panhandle part of Peru, which was part of the deparment of Arequipa, wanted to join up with Bolivia since they really did not get along with the government in Lima. They also had an historical connection which included trade with Bolivia.
This region was made up in 1823 of the Province of Moquegua and the province of Arica which was made up of the future provinces of Tacna and Tarapaca. Seems this greater area has had its provincial territorial limits redrawn many times which is why it gets confusing keeping track of which provinces existed at which time.

Map of Peru early 1800's showing the department of Arequipa:

So far we have the department of Arequipa which was made up of 7 provinces, Two of its southern provinces, Moquegua and Arica, wanted to separate from Peru and become part of Bolivia. The cities in that area included Tacna and Arica. Remember, the future province of Tacna and southern most province of Tarapaca did not yet exist has separate provinces. Both were part of Arica province.

The following is a map of the area in question. This map is from 1865 and shows the then created Department of Monquegua which did not exist in 1826. So as far as I can figure in 1826 the Province of Arica in Red on the following map also included Tarapaca in green and Tacna in blue. The province of Monquegua is that yellow and I do not know if it could have included some parts of blue or some territory where it say Arequipa to the North of the yellow.

It is a large map:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3d/Departamento_moquegua_1865.JPG

In 1826 Bolivia almost got that area.
Following is from a treaty between Peru and Bolivia that never got the President of Peru Andrés de Santa Cruz , who happened to be Bolivian, did not sign it. He was looking for a confederation between Peru and Bolivia.

"To Bolivia the port of Arica and would leave the rest

comprehended between the eighteenth degree until the twenty

one and all the territory belonging to the province of Tacna and all the other towns located to the south of this line."

This is where things get confusing again since Tacna was supposedly not a province in 1826. It supposedly was part of the province of Arica. Could be even though it was not officially a province they called it one. We need someone who has studied the history of Peru to check this.

Latitude and Longtitude map of that area. Map is from 1879:

A large map: http://www.launion.edu.pe/sate/cont...Bolivia%20y%20Chile%20en%201879/peru_1879.jpg

So everything South of the 18 degree line which was just north of the City of Tacna to the 21 degree line where Peru ended according to that treaty in 1826 would have gone to Bolivia.

Got info. from wiki and this site on US Politicians that were stationed there and wrote about what was going on in this region. I got the treaty quote from there. Site is full of info.:
http://www.boliviaweb.com/mar/sea/chapter1.htm

President of Bolivia in 1826 was the famous Antonio José de Sucre.

 

[tallwingedgoat]

Wasn't the War of the Pacific fought over bird droppings in the Atacama desert? What about having the bird droppings discovered earlier?

 

[Tocomocho]

When Bolivia was defeated in OTL (but Chile and Peru were still fighting each other) its new president Narciso Campero actually offered to reenter the war on the Chilean side in exchange of the Peruvian panhandle or at least part of it, while surrendering every claim to the Antofagasta province to Chile. Naturally the Chileans though better and decided to grab everything forthemselves, but imagine they accepted that offer.

 

[EMT]

You've got to remember something though.

1. Bolivia's always been the military weakling of Latin America. Peru, I believe, had some of the larger militarys in Latin America, as it was the last place to gain independence from Spain, and had forces there to guard against royalists.

2. Peru wouldn't really accept seceding territory in the longterm, also seeing how the president at the time was a Bolivian...... I think a Peru and Chile vs. Bolivia war is all more likely.

Keeping this in mind, the best option might be for Bolivia to cede some territory to Chile in exchange for assistance in a war against Peru for the territory. Bolivia could gain the hostility of either Chile(as in OTL) or Peru(ITTL) rather easily and either had to walk a tightrope as best as possible to not get caught in a brawl, or side with the stronger one. If you want Bolivia to win the territory from Peru and not lose Antifagosta, you've got me stumped, seeing as Peru or Chile could sweep in and beat down Bolivia by the 30s.

 

[CTeran19]

You've got to remember something though.

1. Bolivia's always been the military weakling of Latin America. Peru, I believe, had some of the larger militarys in Latin America, as it was the last place to gain independence from Spain, and had forces there to guard against royalists.

2. Peru wouldn't really accept seceding territory in the longterm, also seeing how the president at the time was a Bolivian...... I think a Peru and Chile vs. Bolivia war is all more likely.

Keeping this in mind, the best option might be for Bolivia to cede some territory to Chile in exchange for assistance in a war against Peru for the territory. Bolivia could gain the hostility of either Chile(as in OTL) or Peru(ITTL) rather easily and either had to walk a tightrope as best as possible to not get caught in a brawl, or side with the stronger one. If you want Bolivia to win the territory from Peru and not lose Antifagosta, you've got me stumped, seeing as Peru or Chile could sweep in and beat down Bolivia by the 30s.

How well do you actually know Bolivian history? Bolivia under Andres de Santa Cruz (1829-1839) was generally considered to have one of the best militaries on the continent and to be one of richer and more stable states. Peru was in chaos and couldn't defend itself due to three competing caudillos claiming to be president. Given the chaos and need for men, these caudillos generally favored large but ill trained and ill equipped armies. Chile on the other hand was far more stable and really only felt threatened by Bolivia due to the Bolivian-Peruvian confederation. Peru was, and still is, more heavily populated than Bolivia and Chile combined. Bolivia viewed Peru as a threat and Chile as well. I doubt Chile would have cared if Bolivia took the southern panhandle. I doubt they could have even done anything about it. The Chilean population was opposed to the war of the confederation until Portales was killed (it was spun as orchestrated by Santa Cruz, but was in fact the independent actions of a Chilean officer).

If Santa Cruz, rather than form the confederation, had simply backed whichever contender in the Peruvian civil war that was willing to cede the panhandle. Then Bolivia would have gotten it. Portales, the main antagonist against the confederation in Chile, was concerned about the balance of power in South America, which wouldn't have been drastically altered by annexation of the panhandle. You should read the book "Caudillo of the Andes" it gives a good account of Santa Cruz, the early years of Peru and Bolivia (and to a lesser extent Chile and Argentina) and even discusses the outcomes from annexing the panhandle (as well as the junctures of time in which this was possible).

Also, somebody said Bolivia made an offer to Chile during the War of the Pacific to receive the Peruvian panhandle. It was actually the reverse. Chile made the offer to Bolivia.

 

[wtw]

If that guano was found earlier wouldn't cause a three way war between Bolivia, Chile and Peru?

 

[CalBear]

How well do you actually know Bolivian history? Bolivia under Andres de Santa Cruz (1829-1839) was generally considered to have one of the best militaries on the continent and to be one of richer and more stable states. Peru was in chaos and couldn't defend itself due to three competing caudillos claiming to be president. Given the chaos and need for men, these caudillos generally favored large but ill trained and ill equipped armies. Chile on the other hand was far more stable and really only felt threatened by Bolivia due to the Bolivian-Peruvian confederation. Peru was, and still is, more heavily populated than Bolivia and Chile combined. Bolivia viewed Peru as a threat and Chile as well. I doubt Chile would have cared if Bolivia took the southern panhandle. I doubt they could have even done anything about it. The Chilean population was opposed to the war of the confederation until Portales was killed (it was spun as orchestrated by Santa Cruz, but was in fact the independent actions of a Chilean officer).

If Santa Cruz, rather than form the confederation, had simply backed whichever contender in the Peruvian civil war that was willing to cede the panhandle. Then Bolivia would have gotten it. Portales, the main antagonist against the confederation in Chile, was concerned about the balance of power in South America, which wouldn't have been drastically altered by annexation of the panhandle. You should read the book "Caudillo of the Andes" it gives a good account of Santa Cruz, the early years of Peru and Bolivia (and to a lesser extent Chile and Argentina) and even discusses the outcomes from annexing the panhandle (as well as the junctures of time in which this was possible).

Also, somebody said Bolivia made an offer to Chile during the War of the Pacific to receive the Peruvian panhandle. It was actually the reverse. Chile made the offer to Bolivia.

Did you actually just pick a fight with someone in a thread that has been dead for EIGHT YEARS?

Don't do that.