Peru-Bolivian Confederation survives war with Chile, 1839

[cincpac overboard]

The defeat of Confederation forces at the Battle of Yungay in Peru marked that short-lived nation's dissolution. The president of the Confederation, Andres de Santa Cruz, went into exile and the nation of Bolivia suffered decades of petty dictatorships. Over the next century Bolivia lost nearly half of its original territory, including areas with significant mineral wealth.

In this ATL, Santa Cruz wins a decisive victory and wins peace, both externally and internally, for at least a decade. As the chief executive of the Confederation (Supreme Protector), Andres de Santa Cruz was authoritarian but reformist, overhauling the bureaucracy and public finances, issuing a new Constitution and Civil code, etc. With what we know of his reforms, what are the chances that a lasting stability can be attained beyond the initial decade of peace? Apparently he established a free port in Cobija in what is now Chile; does free trade put the Confederation at competitive advantage against its neighbors or were free trade zones common in this period? Does his success embolden reformist efforts in the rest of South America or lead to a reactionary backlash?

Note: My interest in Andres de Santa Cruz was sparked by the interesting discussions occurring in the thread "A South American industrial giant by 1900?" I hope this thread reveals more 19th century South American reformers and reformist movements that would have been influenced by the survival of a Santa Cruz -led Peru-Bolivian Confederation.

 

[Sardar]

I don't know much about the history of the two nations, but it seems strange that they didn't stay together; after all Bolivia was simply called Upper Peru before independence. I think it may simply be a symptom of the extreme instability of Hispanic South America in independence period. How you alleviate this, I'm not sure. But if it does stay together with even a bit more stability than OTL nations, I can't imagine how much better it would be for the region.

 

[cincpac overboard]

I don't know much about the history of the two nations, but it seems strange that they didn't stay together; after all Bolivia was simply called Upper Peru before independence. I think it may simply be a symptom of the extreme instability of Hispanic South America in independence period.

The interesting thing about Bolivia is that Santa Cruz didn't become 'Supreme Protector' there through military conquest; he was actually summoned and then proclaimed such, suggesting a popularity and legitimacy that would be rare in Bolivia's future. He ruled for almost ten years and likely would have continued for years more had he not been defeated at the Battle of Yungay. Stability alone would put his nation at an great advantage to its neighbors as potential allies and trade partners wouldn't be concerned about treaties being broken just because of a change of administration.

Speaking of neighbors, I think the greatest benefit of Santa Cruz being in office is the fear he would instill in them of the potential strength of the Peru-Bolivian Confederation.
It would spur them to adopt reforms themselves just out of self-preservation. Colombia in particular would likely be franticly attempting to reorganize its administration (especially tax collection) in order to support a modern army. Santa Cruz apparently had proclaimed the Confederation to be the true successor to the Inca Empire, which would imply disturbing territorial ambitions in some quarters.

 

[holycookie]

Speaking of neighbors, I think the greatest benefit of Santa Cruz being in office is the fear he would instill in them of the potential strength of the Peru-Bolivian Confederation.

The Confederacy was too unstable to be a threat. Peruvians did not want to be part of the confederation and support for Santa Cruz came mainly from Bolivians. This allowed Peru to gain its independence from the confederation and well Bolivia itself is not a threat to anyone. He literally had Brazilian, French and English support and yet he couldn't keep the confederation stable.

It would spur them to adopt reforms themselves just out of self-preservation.

Maybe, the confederation lasted only 3 years it's hard to know if it would be functional or would have so many internal problems that the country would become lethargic dealing with so many internal problems.

Colombia in particular would likely be franticly attempting to reorganize its administration (especially tax collection) in order to support a modern army.

probably, in the meantime it is easier to support Peruvians who want to secede from the confederation.

Santa Cruz apparently had proclaimed the Confederation to be the true successor to the Inca Empire, which would imply disturbing territorial ambitions in some quarters.

Yes, and Solano Lopes thought he was Napoleon reborn. If he tries to recreate the Inca empire he will be even more attacked than in the OTL. Having to deal with Chileans, Argentinians, Colombians and probably Brazilians (if he pisses off the country). The confederation was already of good size and was too unstable. Keep adding territory will make the confederation implode

 

[cincpac overboard]

The Confederacy was too unstable to be a threat. Peruvians did not want to be part of the confederation and support for Santa Cruz came mainly from Bolivians. This allowed Peru to gain its independence from the confederation and well Bolivia itself is not a threat to anyone. He literally had Brazilian, French and English support and yet he couldn't keep the confederation stable.

So basically you're saying that even if he knocks the Chileans out of the fight with the victory at Yungay he will never cow the Peruvian separatists. He could win every battle against them and still lose the war. All the same in 1836 he did sort of fudge his way into a confederation by calling congresses of the northern and southern departments of Peru and getting a proclamation as Supreme Protector. Of course not all Peruvian politicians agreed with his scheme and went to Chile for support, but enough did to form the Confederation in the first place.

Any idea from your understanding of the South American statecraft of the time what incentives could he have offered to get more politicians on board? Would the concessions offered resulted a nation in name only, with Peru exempt from his Bolivian reforms just to keep the fiction of unity?

EDIT: Interesting that you mention Brazilian support for his endeavour. What form did it take and why was it offered?

 

[holycookie]

So basically you're saying that even if he knocks the Chileans out of the fight with the victory at Yungay he will never cow the Peruvian separatists. He could win every battle against them and still lose the war.

Basically yes because the problem wasn't the troops or soldiers (although he would have to defeat the Argentinians as well). The problem was that the confederation was basically controlled by Bolivia, the least populated and economically weakest region. The "confederation" lasted three years for a reason.

but enough did to form the Confederation in the first place.

Yes and lasted three years, three miserable chaotic years.

Any idea from your understanding of the South American statecraft of the time what incentives could he have offered to get more politicians on board? Would the concessions offered resulted a nation in name only, with Peru exempt from his Bolivian reforms just to keep the fiction of unity?

Stop trying to centralize the confederation, give more local independence. In otl there were internal divisions and resistance from various groups. Indigenous populations, local elites, and regional factions were wary of the centralizing tendencies of the confederation and resisted its authority. These divisions weakened the confederation's stability and undermined its effectiveness. But this is a double-edged sword, the more independence the regions gain, the weaker the central government becomes and the easier it will be for the regions to gain independence. Better economic choices, the economic policies implemented by Santa Cruz faced resistance and created economic disruptions. The break of the spanish empire also created decline in trade and economic hardships. Try to accommodate the nationalistic sentiments of different groups, a lot of people in Peru and Bolivia resisted the idea of subsuming their national identities and sovereignty into a larger confederation. A more competente goverment, for there were a lot of administrative inefficiencies, disputes over power-sharing, and a lack of consensus on key policies.

EDIT: Interesting that you mention Brazilian support for his endeavour. What form did it take and why was it offered?

Self interest mosty. Brazil wanted more enemies agaist argentina and chile. The country aimed to prevent the consolidation of power in neighboring countries, which could potentially threaten Brazil's own regional dominance. Basically Brazil wanted both sides to keep fighting until all sides were completely exhausted. Economically speaking, the country wanted to economically dominate the confederation, to expand its trade and economic power. And of course more stability in the region. Diplomatically support and nothing more. When the country began to lose, Brazil declared neutrality

 

[cincpac overboard]

At least within Bolivia proper it seems that Santa Cruz was an able enough administrator, securing stability for close to ten years. Economically though it was stunted since I believe the army sucked up a whopping 40% of government revenues, leaving very little for infrastructure improvements. South Peru alone might have been a better acquisition for Bolivia since it was the poorer, more agrarian part Peru. North Peru, yeah, they (the elites) wanted nothing to do with Bolivia since apparently they had profitable trade relationships with Chile and didn't want to rock the boat.

As things were, Chile saw the Confederation as an existential threat of the first order. I could see a timeline where the union of South Peru and Bolivia would arouse far less ire from the Chileans as they would have a natural ally in North Peru. Bolivia and South Peru had once been part of the same colonial department (Upper Peru) so it wasn't as though this pairing was unprecedented. The foremost caudillo in North Peru, Agustin Gamarra, might try to reclaim South Peru by force, but with less Chilean support he might die even more quickly than he did OTL (1841) when he invaded Bolivia.

 

[Slime_blob]

Bolivia got like only stable country in Latin America. The rest pf the continent is like in unrest

And Santa Cruz was like doing the same in Peru What he did in Bolivia, reorganizing shit and reforms. While like crushing any dissent.

Imagine the combined wealth of Silver, Guano, Saltpetre, Copper, Tin and etc.

Like they will have a worldwide Monopoly on Guano and Saltpeter for a while.

 

[cincpac overboard]

Imagine the combined wealth of Silver, Guano, Saltpetre, Copper, Tin and etc.

Unfortunately the mining industry in Bolivia at this time was described as being a 'shadow' of its former self. It desperately needs cheap labor to revitalize. One way might be to offer emancipation to slaves in exchange for a 5-year term of service in the mines, although I don't know if there were enough slaves to really help. This labor pool might be bolstered by an increase in the mita labor requirement of the indigenous population, although that might lead to a decrease in agricultural output and lead to civil unrest. If the labor shortage can be addressed, that might attract the foreign investment in mining operations that Bolivia sought but was unable to obtain OTL.

 

[TrickyApe]

Unfortunately the mining industry in Bolivia at this time was described as being a 'shadow' of its former self. It desperately needs cheap labor to revitalize. One way might be to offer emancipation to slaves in exchange for a 5-year term of service in the mines, although I don't know if there were enough slaves to really help. This labor pool might be bolstered by an increase in the mita labor requirement of the indigenous population, although that might lead to a decrease in agricultural output and lead to civil unrest. If the labor shortage can be addressed, that might attract the foreign investment in mining operations that Bolivia sought but was unable to obtain OTL.

Was the price of mercury, due to to the monopoly in Europe at the time, a factor? I was wondering if earlier development of the mercury mines in California would have much effect on Mexico and South America.

 

[someone45356]

I don't know much about the history of the two nations, but it seems strange that they didn't stay together; after all Bolivia was simply called Upper Peru before independence. I think it may simply be a symptom of the extreme instability of Hispanic South America in independence period. How you alleviate this, I'm not sure. But if it does stay together with even a bit more stability than OTL nations, I can't imagine how much better it would be for the region.

Thats actually incorrect, the name Upper Peru is what the Rio de la Platans called the territory we know now as bolivia. Before it was called “La Real Audiencia de Charcas”. Bunch of reasons why both territories aren’t one, from the Bourbon reforms which gave the whole real audiencia to the viceroyalty of Rio de la plata, to Simon Bolivar and Sucre aiding greedy bolivian elites at the times of the independences, and even later on as whats being said That once tried to put back together the confederacy fell apart because it tried to make Bolivia the centerpiece when that just wasn’t gonna fly.

Added to this that Bolivia and Peru themselves had a recent conflict in regards to the bolivian independence that Simon Bolivar aided in, that the british interests in the region had always been to keep the entire region split apart so theyre easy to economically control, that the neighbors at the time (Argentina and Chile especially in this example) forced independence on Peru to begin with because Peru was always seen as an imperialistic powerhouse at the time (previous revolts under the spanish would have peruvian troops marching over buenos aires, santiago, etc) so having all of bolivia couldve been seen as much of a similar threat, that the whole plan was all on Santa Cruz essentially, etc.

The key to keep the confederacy was to first have everyone in on the plan, to have Lima/northern peru have a greater role in this considering the value Lima had itself. By having more unity within the very same boundaries means one can finally look outwards. I think the british role in this is probably the scariest since they can certainly fund a lot of the dissidents to push for the disunity of the land while and after, but at least by having Peru-Bolivia playing a sole defense role rather than a tug of war + defense would be more feasible. Obviously hard to pull off too when you have elites and caudillos on both sides who only wanted the best for themselves/ could get that british fund to work towards those interests.

 

[cincpac overboard]

Two background events that, had they been avoided, might have steered the war in the Confederation's favor were the assassination of Chilean President Diego Portales and Santa Cruz not supporting the Unitarian faction in Argentina. Public support in Chile for the war had been flagging, but was renewed by the shock of the assassination of Portales in June 1837. Argentina went to war because of the perceived support of Santa Cruz for the opponents to caudillo Juan Manuel de Rosas. Remove either of these events and the Confederation has a much improved chance for victory.

One of the side impacts of a Confederation victory is that Santa Cruz may no longer feel obligated to pay Peru's debts to Chile, which he offered to do in an effort to prevent war. That, combined with a limitation on standing armies in the peace agreement may finally give the Confederation the economic surplus to start investing in infrastructure.

Diego Portales and Agustin Gamarra would no doubt remain implacable enemies of the Confederation. To prevent a second round of the War of Confederation I think we need to see Gamarra get killed on close to his OTL schedule (1841) or Portales to lose the presidency in the fallout of a defeat.

 

[Fishy10]

Imo the only way to maintain the confederacy is making Lima the capital, basically Peru annexing Bolivia

 

[Slime_blob]

Unfortunately the mining industry in Bolivia at this time was described as being a 'shadow' of its former self. It desperately needs cheap labor to revitalize. One way might be to offer emancipation to slaves in exchange for a 5-year term of service in the mines, although I don't know if there were enough slaves to really help. This labor pool might be bolstered by an increase in the mita labor requirement of the indigenous population, although that might lead to a decrease in agricultural output and lead to civil unrest. If the labor shortage can be addressed, that might attract the foreign investment in mining operations that Bolivia sought but was unable to obtain OTL.

Immigrant labor like Chileans in Bolivian Saltpetre mines, Asian, particularly chinese is like went to Peru OTL. Alot of them. Santa Cruz technically did revitalize the economy,

And like having a monopoly alone, which like Peru had a worldwide monopoly on Guano, will like keep finances afloat. Till it runs out, just as otl.

Likely saltpetre too, as I'm sure they will get territories and reparations if they end up winning. Chile's Saltpetre & Copper mines Annexed to Peru Bolivia. And I think that they would mostly be like fine, like importing laborers if the local laborforce isnt enough. Santa Cruz iirc was like the one who reintroduced tribute payments I'm not sure, but he is definitely willing to tax the indegenous.

Imo the only way to maintain the confederacy is making Lima the capital, basically Peru annexing Bolivia

Peru Was in Civil War before the President begged Santa Cruz to intervene in Peru. Like only Bolivia had like some semblance of authoritarian order, most are like filled with unrest.

 

[cincpac overboard]

I think a necessary component to bring North Peru (and its Lima elites) into the fold is to give them a reason to be interested in economic integration with Bolivia. To that end, I think that Lima has to effectively become the sole port for the export of Bolivian products to the world. Ideally a railroad would be constructed from the Bolivian capital of Sucre to Lima for the transportation of silver and textiles. I'm not sure if a railroad like this is feasible in the 1840s however. The topography looks extremely challenging, local knowledge of rail building likely doesn't exist, plus the lack of nitroglycerine would make the blasting of rail tunnels tortuous.

One possible stopgap would be the creation of a 'national highway' between Sucre and Lima, with the peacetime army doing the bulk of the paving and bridge building. The local elites of the three constituent republics of the Confederation could be enticed to provide mita labor crews in exchange for land grants along the route of the highway. Funding for upkeep could be provided by handing out toll concessions to the most important elites in each of the three republics.

 

[holycookie]

I'm not sure if a railroad like this is feasible in the 1840s however.

I think even nowadays a train from Sucre to Lima would be hell to do

One possible stopgap would be the creation of a 'national highway' between Sucre and Lima, with the peacetime army doing the bulk of the paving and bridge building.

I don't know, if the army will be willing to basically do such a hell of a job. This type of construction was usually done with prisoners of war/slaves.

The local elites of the three constituent republics of the Confederation could be enticed to provide mita labor crews in exchange for land grants along the route of the highway. Funding for upkeep could be provided by handing out toll concessions to the most important elites in each of the three republics.

Economically speakingthe elite of northern peru had more trade agreements and benefits with chile than with bolivia. The land grants along the route of the highway are basically useless being mountains or deserts. It's more of a punishment than a benefit. Taking out a few specific points that all three elites will want to control the rest is pretty bad. I've been to Bolivia and apart from some specific places where you can do agriculture, the rest is uninhabited land. That and of course the water problem.

 

[lynxpt]

I don't know much about the history of the two nations, but it seems strange that they didn't stay together; after all Bolivia was simply called Upper Peru before independence. I think it may simply be a symptom of the extreme instability of Hispanic South America in independence period. How you alleviate this, I'm not sure. But if it does stay together with even a bit more stability than OTL nations, I can't imagine how much better it would be for the region.

@dieg-ish said at https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...via-inside-gran-colombia.533915/post-23619398 that the elites in Upper Peru, modern Bolivia, wanted badly to break away from Peru.