War of the Pacific

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
This article is about the 19th century war between Bolivia, Chile and Peru. For the Pacific theater of World War II, see Pacific War.
War of the Pacific
Map of the War of the Pacific.en.svg
  Peruvian territories before the war
  Bolivian territories before the war
  Chilean territories before the war

Map showing changes of territory due to the war
Date February 14, 1879 – October 20, 1883 (Chile-Peru Peace)

Bolivia-Chile armistice in 1884; peace with Bolivia signed October 20, 1904

Location Peru and Bolivia in Pacific coast of South America
Result Chilean victory, Bolivia became a landlocked country
Territorial
changes
Belligerents
Peru Peru
Bolivia Bolivia
Chile Chile
Commanders and leaders
Presidents of Peru

Peru Mariano Ignacio Prado (1876–1879)
Peru Nicolás de Piérola (1879–1881)
Peru Francisco García Calderón (12.Mar.1881–28.Sep.1881)
Peru Lizardo Montero Flores (1881–1883)
Peru Miguel Iglesias (North Peru 1882–1885)
Presidents of Bolivia
Bolivia Hilarión Daza (1876–1879)
Bolivia Narciso Campero (1879–1884)

Presidents of Chile

Chile Aníbal Pinto (1876–1881)
Chile Domingo Santa María (1881–1886)

Strength
1879

Bolivian Army: 2,300 soldiers
Bolivian Navy: None
Peruvian Army: 4,700 soldiers
Remington and Minié rifles, Blakely cannon
Peruvian Navy: 2 ironclad, 2 coastal monitors, 1 corvette, 1 gunboat

December 1880
Peruvian Army: 28,000 soldiers[1]
Peruvian Navy: 2 coastal monitors, 1 corvette

1879

Chilean Army: 4,000 soldiers
Comblain rifle, Krupp cannon
Chilean Navy: 2 ironclads, 4 corvettes, 1 gunboat, 1 schooner

December 1880
Chilean Army: 21,000[2]:263 soldiers
Chilean Navy: 3 ironclads, 4 corvettes, 2 gunboats, several armed steamers

Casualties and losses
10,467 Killed
plus (9,103[3] POWs)
Pisagua, Iquique, Mollendo, Supe, Chorrillos, Miraflores, Concepción, San Pablo, bombed or burned
2,825[3] Killed in Action
7,347[3] Wounded
No cities were affected

The War of the Pacific (Spanish: Guerra del Pacífico) (1879–1883) was fought in western South America, between Chile and allied Bolivia and Peru. Despite cooperation among the three nations in the Chincha Islands War, disputes soon arose over the mineral-rich Peruvian provinces of Tarapaca, Tacna, and Arica, and the Bolivian province of Antofagasta. Chilean business enterprises, which had largely developed the area, perceived their interests at risk when Peru nationalised all nitrate mines in Tarapaca, and Bolivia imposed a 10-cent tax on the Compañía de Salitres y Ferrocarril de Antofagasta (CSFA). The foundations of the conflict were laid in a dispute between Chile and Bolivia over part of the Atacama Desert and in the Peruvian attempt to monopolize the nitrate commerce.[4]

The War of the Pacific started on February 14, 1879[5] when Chilean armed forces occupied the port city of Antofagasta, as the Bolivian authorities pretended to auction the confiscated property of Chilean CSFA. Peru tried to mediate, but when Bolivia announced that a state of war existed, the situation deteriorated. Bolivia declared war on Chile at the end of February 1879 and called on Peru to activate their secret mutual defense pact, while Chile demanded that Peru declare its neutrality. On April 5, after Peru refused it, Chile declared war on both nations. The following day, Peru responded by acknowledging the casus foederis.

This "Saltpetre War" took place over five years in a variety of terrain, including the Atacama Desert and Peru's deserts and mountainous regions in the Andes. The war's first battle was the Battle of Topáter. For first 5 months the war was played out in a naval campaign, as Chile struggled to establish a sea-based resupply corridor for its forces in the world's driest desert. The Peruvian Navy met initial success, but the Chilean Navy eventually prevailed.

Afterwards, Chile's land campaign bested the poorly equipped Bolivian and Peruvian armies. Bolivia was defeated and withdrew in the Battle of Tacna on May 26, 1880. The Peruvian army was defeated after the Battle of Arica on June 7. The land campaign climaxed in 1881, with the Chilean occupation of Lima. Peruvian army remnants and irregulars waged a guerrilla war against Chile. This Campaign of the Breña was fairly successful as a resistance movement, but did not change the war's outcome. After Peru's defeat in the Battle of Huamachuco, Chile and Peru signed the Treaty of Ancón on October 20, 1883. Bolivia signed a truce with Chile in 1884.

Chile acquired the Peruvian territory of Tarapacá, the disputed Bolivian department of Litoral (cutting Bolivia off from the sea), as well as temporary control over the Peruvian provinces of Tacna and Arica. In 1904, Chile and Bolivia signed the "Treaty of Peace and Friendship" establishing definite boundaries. The situation between Chile and Peru worsened when the former did not hold a promised 1893 plebiscite to determine the fate of the provinces of Arica and Tacna. Colonization and violent Chileanization of the territories resulted in a break of relations in 1911. The 1929 Tacna–Arica compromise gave Arica to Chile and Tacna to Peru, but did not resolve the antipathy. Later political problems among these neighbours have often referred back to this conflict.

Etymology

It is also known as the Saltpetre War (Guerra del Salitre), Guano War (Guerra del Guano), and the Guano and Saltpetre War (Guerra del Guano y el Salitre).[6] Other names include The Cents War, in reference to the controversial ten-cent tax imposed by the Bolivian government and supported by the Bolivian Congress, and the Second War of the Pacific.[citation needed] (The Chincha Islands War is sometimes known as the First War of the Pacific[citation needed]).

Background

The dry climate of the Peruvian and Bolivian coasts had permitted the accumulation and preservation of vast amounts of high-quality nitrate deposits such as guano (bird excrement) and saltpeter. In the 1840s, guano's newfound value as fertilizer and saltpeter's role in explosives made the Atacama Desert strategically and economically important. Bolivia, Chile, and Peru were located in the area of the largest reserves of a resource the world demanded. During the Chincha Islands War (1864–1866), Spain, under Queen Isabella II, attempted to exploit an incident involving Spanish citizens in Peru to re-establish Spanish influence over the guano-rich Chincha Islands. It lost as Peru gained its independence. Peru and Chile signed a treaty of alliance against Spain on December 5, 1865.[7] Together, with the minor aid of Bolivia and Ecuador (who had fought an inconclusive war with Peru from 1858 to 1860), they forced the Spanish to withdraw after clashes at Papudo, Abtao, and Callao.

Atacama disputes

South America (1879): Bolivia, Chile, and Peru held territorial disputes with their neighbors, except among each other. Bolivia and Chile resolved their territorial disputes in 1866. Peru and Chile did not share a border.

Starting from the Chilean silver rush in the 1830s, Atacama was prospected and populated by Chileans backed by Chilean and European (mainly British) capital.[8] Chilean and foreign enterprises in the region eventually extended their control to the Peruvian saltpeter works. In the Peruvian region of Tarapacá Peruvian people constituted a minority behind both Chileans and Bolivians.[9] Conflicts between Chilean and Bolivian miners were common in Peruvian saltpeter works.[9] In some cases conflicts developed a xenophobic character, a notorious case occurred in 1870 when Chile had to evacuate its citizens from the Peruvian port of Iquique.[9]

Boundary Treaty of 1866

Bolivia and Chile disputed the Atacama region. Claiming territory according to the uti possidetis juris principle, the two disagreed on whether the territory of Charcas had access to the sea. Charcas had been part of the Viceroyalty of Peru and, later, part of the Viceroyalty of the Río de la Plata. Eventually, the two countries negotiated the "Boundary Treaty of 1866" ("Treaty of Mutual Benefits"). The treaty established the 24th parallel south as their mutual boundary.[10] The two countries gained equal rights to tax revenue on mineral exports from the territory between the 23rd and 25th parallels, which covered a large part of the Atacama Desert.

Economic depression

Starting in 1873, Chile's economy deteriorated.[11] Chilean wheat exports were outcompeted by production in Canada, Russia, and Argentina. Chilean copper was largely replaced in international markets by copper from the United States and Spain.[12] Chile's silver mining income also dropped.[12] Contemporaries considered the crisis the worst ever of independent Chile.[11] Chilean newspaper El Ferrocarril predicted 1879 to be "a year of mass business liquidation".[11]

As unenviable Chile’s situation was, that of Peru was much worse. The 1870s was for Peru's economy "a decade of crisis and change".[13] Nitrate extraction rose while guano extraction declined and sugarcane dethroned cotton as the main cash crop.[13] Guano exports dropped from 575,000 tons in 1869 to less than 350,000 tons in 1873 and the Chincha Islands and other guano islands were depleted or close to be so.[13] Deposits elsewhere were of poor quality.[13]

Secret Mutual Defense Treaty of 1873

In 1872, Peruvian foreign relations minister José de la Riva-Agüero believed Chile would use their acquisition of new ironclad ships to take possession of the Bolivian coastline. He wanted Peru to use its maritime influence to put an end to the conflict before Chile is in possession of the ironclads under construction.[14] Marshal Ramón Castilla had also warned Peru of a possible Chilean attack and recommended that when Chile bought a warship, Peru should buy two; lack of money prevented the Peruvian government from following Castilla's advice.[15]

On February 6, 1873, Peru and Bolivia signed a treaty of alliance against Chile[16] known as the "Secret treaty of alliance between Peru and Bolivia of 1873", which publicly stated intentions were to guarantee their independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity. The last clause kept the treaty secret as long as both parties considered its publication unnecessary.[17] Chile, through its Minister Plenipotentiary Carlos Walker Martínez, had learned of the treaty in 1874. Walker mentioned the treaty in his 1876 work, Pajinas De Un Viaje Al Traves De La America Del Sur. Chile also learned of the treaty through another minister in 1877, when Argentina's senate discussed the invitation to join the Peru-Bolivia defensive alliance.[18][19][20][21]

Argentina, involved in a long standing dispute with Chile over the Strait of Magellan and Patagonia, was secretly invited to adhere to the pact against Chile, and in September 1873 the Argentine Chamber of Deputies approved the treaty and $6,000,000 for the war[22] Eventually Argentina and Bolivia didn't agree about the territories of Tarija and Chaco, and the former feared a Chile-Brazil axis. The Argentine Senate postponed and later rejected the approval. Later in 1879, at the beginning of the crisis, Peru tried again to obtain the Argentine adhesion to the treaty. According to the Chilean historian Gonzalo Bulnes, Peru offered Argentina an outlet to the Pacific ocean through Chilean territories.[23]

Boundary Treaty of 1874

In 1874, Chile and Bolivia replaced the 1866 boundary treaty with a treaty keeping the boundary in the 24°S latitude but granting Bolivia the authority to collect all tax revenue between the 23rd and 24th parallels, fixing the tax rates on Chilean companies for 25 years and calling for Bolivia to open up.[10][24] Chilean companies executed most of the exploitation of the Atacama coastal region. On December 26, 1874, the recently built ironclad Cochrane arrived in Valparaíso; it remained in Chile until the completion of the Blanco Encalada threw the balance of south Pacific power towards Chile.[25] In 1875 Peru postponed the Argentine signing of the alliance treaty.[26]

Peruvian Monopoly of Guano and Nitrate

Guano revenues, which had been the substantial funds of the Peruvian state, fell off dramatically with the exhaustion of the best deposits at the beginning of the 1870's. To improve the revenues of guano Peru created a monopoly of the commerce of nitrate in 1875. The aims of the monopoly were to increase the price, to curb the export and so to impede the competition with the guano. But most larger nitrate firms opposed the sales monopoly of nitrate.[13] When this was unsuccessful, in 1876, it began to expropriate foreign capitalists of nitrate in Peru,[27] and to bought nitrate concessions like Henry Meiggs had in Bolivia ("Toco", south of the Loa River).[13] but the CSFA was too expensive and couldn't be purchased.[28] Later, as the Chilean company was to be auctioned on 14 February 1879 in Antofagasta, it was considered that the Peruvian consul would be the highest bidder.[29]

But, as Peruvian Alejandro Reyes states, this needed also the control over the Bolivian salitreras, and that was the internationalisation of the conflict, because they were in the hands of Chilean and British capitals.[4]

Causes of the war

Ronald Bruce St. John in "The Bolivia-Chile-Peru Dispute in the Atacama Desert" states:

Even though the 1873 treaty and the imposition of the 10 centavos tax proved to be the casus belli, there were deeper, more fundamental reasons for the outbreak of hostilities in 1879. On the one hand, there was the power, prestige, and relative stability of Chile compared to the economic deterioration and political discontinuity which characterised both Peru and Bolivia after independence. On the other, there was the ongoing competition for economical and political hegemony in the region, complicated by a deep antipathy between Peru and Chile. In this milieu, the vagueness of the boundaries between the three states, coupled with the discovery of valuable guano and nitrate deposits in the disputed territories, combined to produce a diplomatic conundrum of insurmountable proportions[30]

The United States historian William F. Sater gives 4 possible and non-contradictory reasons for the beginning of the war:[31]

1 The holder of the Chilean nitrate companies "bulldozed" the Chilean president Aníbal Pinto into declaring war in order to protect the owner of the Compañia de Salitres y Ferrocarril and later to seize Bolivia's and Peru's salitreras.

2 The true causes of the conflict are not economic but geopolitical: a struggle for control of the southwestern portion of the Pacific ocean. So in 1836 the Peruvian government tried to monopolize the commerce in the South Pacific by rewarding ships which sailed direct to Callao in detriment of Valparaíso[32] and Peru tried to impede the agreement reached both Spain and Chile in order to free its new warships built and embargoed in England during the Chincha War.

3 Peru desired to monopolize and appropriate the nitrate works to strengthen its nitrate monopoly and in order to achieve it, the Bolivian and Chilean salitreras had to be controlled by Peru. William Edmundso states in A History of the British Presence in Chile:[33]

Peru has its own reasons to enter the dispute. Rory Miller (1993) argues that the depletion of guano resources and poor management of the economy in Peru had provoked a crisis. This has caused Peru to default on its external debt in 1876, ... In that year [1875] the Peruvian government decided to procure a loan of seven millions pounds of which four millions pounds were earmarked to purchase privately owned oficinas [salitreras] ... and Peru defaulted again in 1877.

4 The declarations of war between Chile and Peru were a product of popular domestic forces, that is, the president had to enter into war or to abandon and cede.

Crisis

The Ten Cents Tax

Since 1866 Chilean entrepreneurs José Santos Ossa and Francisco Puelma exploited deposits of sodium nitrate in Bolivian territories (salitreras "Las Salinas" and "Carmen Alto" 122 and 128 km from Antofagasta resp.) secured by concessions from the then President of Bolivia Mariano Melgarejo. Later, in 1868, British capital was associated and founded the Compañía Melbourne Clark. In 1872 the company obtained the license to construct a railroad from Antofagasta to Salinas, and the company was renamed to Compañía de Salitres y Ferrocarril de Antofagasta (CSFA), with a minority of British capital of 34% [34] from the Antony Gibbs & Sons of London, which were also shareholder of salitreras in Peru. The new company was established in Valparaíso, Chile. Its shareholders included a number of leading Chilean politicians.[35] On 27 November 1873 the CSFA obtained from the Bolivian executive a license to exploit saltpeter duty-free for 15 years, but it was disputed whether the decree needed the authorization of the Bolivian Congress.[36]

Next year was signed the (new) Chile-Bolivia Boundary Treaty of 1874, one of those articles explicit forbid further tax over Chilean enterprises of the nitrate.

On 10 February 1878 the National Congress of Bolivia and a National Constituent Assembly approved the 1873 license under the condition that the company would pay a 10 cents per quintal tax,[37][38] but the company objected that the increased payments were illegal and demanded an intervention from the Chilean government.[39] In response, Chile said that the treaty[40] did not allow for such a tax hike. Bolivia suspended the tax in April 1878. In November Chile suggested the possibility of nullifying the treaty if Bolivia continued to insist on the taxes. Bolivia then said the tax was unrelated to the treaty and that the claim of the CSFA should be addressed in Bolivian courts, and revived the tax.[39] When the company refused to pay the tax, Bolivia threatened to confiscate its property. On 1. February 1879 the government of Bolivia declared void the CSFA-license[41]

War start

Eduardo Abaroa and Topáter defenders.

In December 1878, Chile dispatched a warship to the area. Bolivia announced that the company was to be seized and auctioned on February 14, 1879. On the day of the auction, 500 Chilean soldiers arrived by ship at the port city of Antofagasta, and seized it having received no resistance. The occupying forces received widespread support from the local population, the majority of who were Chilean.[42][43] Antofagasta's population was 93–95% Chilean.[44] On February 18, while in Antofagasta, Chilean colonel Emilio Sotomayor intercepted a letter from Bolivian president Hilarión Daza to Bolivian prefect-colonel Severino Zapata. The letter allegedly mentioned Daza's worry of Chilean interference with Bolivia's nationalization of British saltpeter companies, and mentioned a previously secret treaty that Bolivia would, if necessary, demand that Peru honor should Chile declare war.[45]

Peruvian mediation

Peruvian mediators. Left to right: Fernando Casos, Hernando de Lavalle, and José de Lavalle.

Peru sent a diplomatic team headed by José Antonio de Lavalle, a senior diplomat, to mediate with the Chilean government and request that Chile return Antofagasta to Bolivia. Under the impression that previous Peruvian demands had favored Bolivia, the Chilean government stalled. Chileans were further discomfited by Lavalle's claim that he did not know of a Peru-Bolivia Mutual Defense Treaty. Suspecting that Peru's attempt was not bona fide, Chile believed Peru was only trying to delay the situation until it completed its war preparations.[46][47] Edwin Montefiore Borchard argues that "much reading fails to substantiate the charge" Chile made against Peru. He further writes that Peru "was in such financial distress – a fact which may also in lesser degree be asserted of Chile – that she could make no real preparations."[48] William Skuban notes that although in 1879 Chile, Bolivia, and Peru were "ill-prepared" for war, both Peru and Bolivia were less prepared than Chile.[49]

Bolivian declaration of war

On February 27, Daza made a public manifesto informing Bolivians and calling for patriotic support. The same day the Bolivian legislature authorized a formal declaration of war upon Chile, although it was not immediately announced. On March 1, Daza issued instead a decree which prohibited all commerce and communications with Chile "while the state-of-war provoked upon Bolivia lasts," provided Chileans ten days to leave Bolivian territory unless gravely ill or handicapped, embargoed Chilean furniture, property, and mining produce, allowed Chilean mining companies to continue operating under a government-appointed administrator, and provided all embargoes as temporary "unless the hostilities exercised by Chilean forces requires an energetic retaliation from Bolivia." Then, on March 14, in a meeting with foreign powers in Lima, Bolivia announced that a state of war existed with Chile.[50][51] This declaration was aimed to impede further Chilean arms purchase in Europa and to scuttle the Peruvian mediation in Chile.[52] Bolivia called on Peru to activate the alliance treaty, arguing that Chile's invasion constituted a casus foederis.

Regarding the dates, it must be considered that La Paz and Antofagasta were connected neither by a telegraph nor by submarine cable to the rest of the world. Coming from Tacna or Arica, La Paz had to be reached by foot or by horse. Santiago and Caldera (approx. 1000 km from Santiago) were connected by telegraph and Caldera and Tacna by submarine cable. Bolivian historian Querejazu states that news from Santiago to Antofagasta took min. 5 days, from Santiago to La Paz min. 5–10 days (depending by ship or cable from Caldera to Tacna), from Arica or Tacna to La Paz min. 5 days and from La Paz to Antofagasta more than a week.[53]

On March 14, Alejandro Fierro, Chile's minister of foreign affairs, sent a telegram to the Chilean representative in Lima, Joaquin Godoy, requesting immediate neutrality from the Peruvian government.[54] On March 17, Godoy formally presented the Chilean proposal in a meeting with Peruvian President Mariano Ignacio Prado.[55] The following day, Godoy told the Chilean government about the Peru-Bolivia treaty, which had been revealed to him by President Prado while on a conference in Chorrillos.[46]

On March 23, while on their way to occupy Calama, north of 23rd parallel, 554 Chilean troops and cavalry defeated 135 Bolivian soldiers and civilians dug in at two destroyed bridges next to the Topáter river. This Battle of Topáter was the first of the war.

On March 24, Peru responded to Chile and Bolivia by proposing that the Peruvian Congress debate both Chile's neutrality proposal and the Bolivian request for military action under the alliance on April 24.[56] On March 31, after receiving the treaty from Lima, Lavalle proceeded to read the whole text to Fierro and told him that it was not offensive to Chile.[46] Acknowledging the alliance, Chile responded by breaking diplomatic ties and formally declaring war on both countries on April 5, 1879. Peru responded on April 6, when President Prado declared the casus foederis of the Mutual Defense Treaty with Bolivia.[57]

Struggle for sea control

Battle of Iquique, oil painting by Thomas Somerscales. Esmeralda vs. Huáscar.

Given the few roads and railroad lines, the nearly waterless and largely unpopulated Atacama Desert was difficult to occupy. From the beginning naval superiority was critical.[58] Bolivia had no navy,[59] so on March 26 of 1879 Hilarión Daza formally offered letters of marque to any ships willing to fight for Bolivia.[60] The Armada de Chile and Marina de Guerra del Perú fought the naval battles.

Chilean naval power was based on the twin central battery ironclads Cochrane and Blanco Encalada (commissioned in 1874 and 1875, respectively), the corvettes Chacabuco, O'Higgins, and Esmeralda, the gunboat Magallanes, and the schooner Covadonga. Peruvian naval power relied on the broadside ironclad Independencia and the monitor Huáscar (both commissioned in 1868), the corvette Unión, the gunboat Pilcomayo, and the coastal monitors Atahualpa and Manco Cápac. Although both the Chilean and Peruvian ironclads seemed evenly matched, the Chilean ironclads had twice the armor and greater range and hitting power.[61]

Early on Chile blockaded the Peruvian port of Iquique, on April 5.[62] This first naval encounter was the indecisive Battle of Chipana of April 12, 1879, in which the Chilean Magallanes fought the Unión and Pilcomayo, but was unable to complete its reconnaissance mission. In the Battle of Iquique (May 21, 1879), Captain Miguel Grau commanding the Huáscar engaged and sank the Esmeralda; Meanwhile, the Independencia, led by Captain Juan Guillermo More, chased the schooner Covadonga, led by Lieutenant Commander Carlos Condell, until the heavier Independencia collided with a submerged rock and sank in the shallow waters near Punta Gruesa. This naval battle gave a tactical victory to Peru as it stopped the blockade of Iquique. Nevertheless, it was a Pyrrhic victory; the loss of the Independencia, one of Peru's most important ships, was a fatal blow.[63]

Battle of Angamos, oil painting by Thomas Somerscales. Huáscar vs. Cochrane.

In the subsequent months, Miguel Grau's success upheld Peruvian morale in the early stages of the conflict.[64][65] Despite being outnumbered, Grau's monitor Huáscar held off the Chilean navy for six consecutive months.[66] During this time the Huáscar participated in the Battle of Antofagasta (May 26, 1879) and the Second Battle Antofagasta (August 28, 1879).[67] The climax finally came with the capture of the steamship Rímac on July 23, 1879,[68] while carrying a cavalry regiment (the Carabineros de Yungay), the Chilean army's largest loss to that point.[69] The loss led Admiral Juan Williams Rebolledo to resign.[70][71] Commodore Galvarino Riveros Cárdenas replaced Williams,[70][72] and he devised a plan to catch the Huáscar.[73]

The Battle of Angamos, on October 8, 1879 proved decisive.[74] In this battle, the Chilean Navy managed to capture the Huáscar after several hours of fierce battle, despite her remaining crew's attempts to scuttle her.[75] Miguel Grau died during the fighting, but his deeds made him a Peruvian national hero.[76] After the loss of the Huáscar, the Peruvian navy still had some successful actions, particularly during the Naval Battle of Arica (February 27, 1880) and the Second Naval Battle of Arica (March 17, 1880),[77] but its remaining units were locked in its main port during the long Blockade of Callao. When the Peruvian capital of Lima fell after the battles of San Juan and Miraflores, the Peruvian naval officers scuttled the entire fleet to prevent its capture by the Chilean forces.[78]

In the 1879–1880 period Peru acquired weapons from the United States, Europe and Costa Rica in Panama. Weapons loaded off in the Caribbean coast of Panama were sent overland to the Pacific coast by the isthmus railway. In the Pacific a number of ships including Talismán, Chalaco, Limeña, Estrella, Enriqueta and Guadiana transported the cargo to Peru. This trade was done with the consent of the president of the Sovereign State of Panamá (then part of Colombia). The Chilean consul in Panama persistently protested against this trade citing a Chile–Colombia agreement of 1844 that prohibited Colombia to provide war supplies to Chile's enemies.[79]

Invasion of Arica, Tarapacá and Tacna

Oil Painting by Juan Lepiani which represents the Battle of Arica on June 7, 1880. Colonel Francisco Bolognesi rests a hand on the ground and is the center of his men and the action of the painting.

Once Chile achieved naval superiority, the Chilean army initiated a series of military maneuvers in the Peruvian provinces of Tarapacá, Tacna, and Arica. The Campaign of Tarapaca began on November 2, 1879, when Chilean troops landed and attacked beach defenses in Pisagua, some 500 kilometres (310 mi) north of Antofagasta. That night, the Chilean army moved inland.[80] From Pisagua the Chileans marched south towards Iquique and on November 19, 1879, defeated the allied troops gathered in Agua Santa in the Battle of San Francisco and Dolores. Bolivian forces retreated to Oruro and the Peruvians fell back to Tiliviche, while the Chilean army captured Iquique.

A detachment of Chilean soldiers, with cavalry and artillery, was sent to face the Peruvian forces in Tarapacá. Peruvian forces marched towards Arica to reach Bolivian troops led by Daza coming from Arica, but in Camarones Daza decided to return towards Arica. The two sides clashed on November 27 in the Battle of Tarapacá, where the Chilean forces were defeated,[81] but the Peruvian forces, unable to maintain the territory, retreated north to Arica.[82] Bruce W. Farcau comments that, "The province of Tarapacá was lost along with a population of 200,000, nearly one tenth of the Peruvian total, and an annual gross income of ₤ 28 million in nitrate production, virtually all of the country's export earnings."[83] The victory afforded Santiago an economic boon and a potential diplomatic asset.[84]

The Peruvian government was confronted with widespread rioting in Lima because of its failures.[85] On December 18, 1879, Peruvian president Prado went from Callao to Panama, allegedly with six million pesos in gold,[86] with the duty to oversee the purchase of new arms and warships for the nation. In a statement for the Peruvian newspaper El Comercio, he turned over the command of the country to vice president La Puerta, but a coup d'état led by Nicolás de Piérola overthrew the government and took power on December 23, 1879.[87] In Bolivia, after receiving a telegram on December 27, informing him that the army had overthrown him, Daza departed to Europe with $500,000. General Narciso Campero became Bolivia's new president.[88]

Meanwhile, Chile continued its advances in the Campaign of Tacna and Arica. On November 28, Chile declared the formal blockade of Arica.[2]:214 A Chilean force of 600 men carried out an amphibious raid at Ilo as a reconnaissance in force, to the north of Tacna, on December 31, and withdrew the same day.[89] On February 24, 1880 approximately 11,000 men in nineteen ships (protected by Blanco Encalada, Toro, and Magallanes and two torpedo boats) sailed from Pisagua and arrived off Punta Coles, near Pacocha, Ilo on February 26. The landing took several days without resistance. The Peruvian commander, Lizardo Montero, refused to try to drive the Chileans from the beachhead, as the Chileans had expected.[2]:217 On March 22, 3,642 Chilean troops defeated 1,300 Peruvian troops in the Battle of Los Ángeles,[2]:222 cutting any direct Peruvian supply from Lima to Arica or Tacna (Supply was possible only through the long way over Bolivia).[90] After the Battle of Los Ángeles, only three allied positions remained in southern Peru: General Leyva's 2nd Army at Arequipa (including some survivors from Los Ángeles), Bolognesi's 7th and 8th Divisions at Arica, and at Tacna the 1st Army. These forces were under Campero's direct command.[91] However, they were unable to concentrate troops or even to move from their garrisons.[92][93] After crossing 40 miles (64 km) of desert, on May 26 the Chilean army (14,147 men[2]:229) destroyed the allied army of 5,150 Bolivians and 8,500 Peruvians in the Battle of Tacna. The need for a port near the army to supply and reinforce the troops and evacuate the wounded compelled the Chilean command to concentrate on the remaining Peruvian stronghold of Arica. On June 7, after the Battle of Arica, the last Peruvian bastion in the Tacna Department fell. After the campaign of Tacna and Arica, the Peruvian and Bolivian regular armies ceased to exist,[2]:256 and Bolivia effectively left the war.[94]

To show Peru the futility of further resistance, on September 4, 1880 the Chilean government dispatched an expedition of 2,200 men[95] to northern Peru under the command of Captain Patricio Lynch to collect war taxes from wealthy landowners.[96][97] Lynch's Expedition arrived on September 10 to Chimbote[2]:260–and levied taxes of $100,000 in Chimbote, $10,000 in Paita, $20,000 in Chiclayo, and $4,000 in Lambayeque in local currencies; those who did not comply had their property impounded, destroyed or were killed. On September 11, the Peruvian government decreed that payment was an act of treason, but most landowners still paid, given the many death threats.[98]

Lackawanna Conference

Before the United States became formally involved, France, England, and Italy jointly proposed that Chile receive Tarapacá and withdrew their troops to the Camarones River; Chile accepted this solution.[99]

On October 22, 1880, delegates of Peru, Chile, Bolivia, and the United States Minister Plenipotentiary in Chile held a 5-day conference aboard the USS Lackawanna in Arica.[100] Chile had refused previous peace mediations from Ecuador (in May).[101] The Lackawanna Conference, also called the Arica conference, attempted to develop a peace settlement.

Chile demanded the Peruvian Tarapacá province and the Bolivian Atacama, an indemnity of $20,000,000 gold pesos, restoration of property taken from Chilean citizens, the Rimac's return, abrogating the treaty between Peru and Bolivia and Peru's formal commitment not to mount artillery batteries in Arica's harbor. Arica was to be limited to commercial use only. Chile planned to retain the territories of Moquegua, Tacna, and Arica until all peace treaty conditions were satisfied. Although willing to accept the negotiated settlement, Peru and Bolivia insisted that Chile withdraw its forces from all occupied lands as a precondition for discussing peace. Having captured this territory at great expense, Chile declined the terms and the negotiations failed.

Campaign of Lima

Main article: Occupation of Lima
Infantry regiment of the Chilean Army, formed in Lurín, south of Lima, in January 1881

After the campaign of Tacna and Arica, the southern departments of Peru were in Chilean hands, and the armies of Peru and Bolivia could no longer fight. Nonetheless, Chilean public pressure and expansionist ambitions demanded an invasion of Lima to "exterminate the enemy."[102][103] The defeated allies not only failed to realize their situation but, despite the empty Bolivian treasury, on June 16, 1880, the National Assembly voted to continue the war. On June 11, 1880, a document was signed in Peru declaring the creation of the United States of Peru-Bolivia.[104] This situation forced both the Chilean government and its high command to plan a new campaign to obtain an unconditional surrender.[105]

The Chilean forces confronted virtually the entire civilian population of Lima. The irregulars defended prepared positions, supported by a collection of old coastal guns located a few miles from the capital's arsenal and supply depots.[2]:258–259 President Pierola ordered the construction of two parallel defense lines at Chorrillos and Miraflores a few kilometers south of Lima. The line of Chorrillos was 10 miles (16 km) long, lying from Marcavilca hill to La Chira, passing through the steep terrain of San Juan and Santa Teresa.[2]:276– The Peruvian forces were approximately 10,000 untrained civilians between Arequipa and Lima. A small Chilean force went ashore near Pisco, approximately 200 miles (320 km) south of Lima, while the mass of the army disembarked in Chilca only 45 kilometres (28 mi) from the city. On January 13, 1881, the 23,129[106] Chilean troops charged 18,000[107] Peruvian defenders in Chorrillos. During the Battle of Chorrillos, the Chileans inflicted a harsh defeat and eliminated Lima's first defensive line. Following a triumph in the Battle of Miraflores, the Chilean army entered Lima on January 17, 1881.[2]:296 The Peruvian dictator Nicolás de Piérola retreated from the capital to try governing from the rear, and defied Chile's demand for territory and indemnity.[108]

After the Battle of Miraflores, Chilean soldiers started fires and performed sackings, rapes, and even fighting among themselves over war spoils in the towns of Chorrillos and Barranco. Chile ransacked the contents of the National Library of Peru in Lima and transported thousands of books (including many centuries-old original Spanish, Peruvian, and Colonial volumes) to Santiago, along with much capital stock.[citation needed] 3,000 wagons carried the plunder that hadn't already left by sea.[109] In November 2007, Chile returned 3,778 stolen books to the National Library.[110]

Without a Peruvian president who was willing to accept their terms, on February 22, 1881, the Chileans allowed a convention of Peruvian "notables" outside of Lima to elect Francisco García Calderón as president. Garcia Calderón was allowed to raise and arm two infantry battalions (400 men each) and two small cavalry squadrons to add credibility to the provisional government.[111]

War in the Peruvian Sierra

The occupation commander, Vice-admiral Patricio Lynch, sited his military headquarters in the Government Palace in Lima. After the confrontations in San Juan and Miraflores, Peruvian Colonel Andrés Avelino Cáceres escaped to the central Andes to organize resistance. This would come to be known as the Campaign of the Breña or Sierra, which organized a rebellion in Lima and eventually organized a widespread resistance.[112][113]

During the war, Chile voted in a new Congress on schedule. In 1881 Domingo Santa María was elected President, assuming office on September 18, 1881. A new Congress was elected on schedule in 1882.[114] The new administration pushed for an end to the costly war. In February 1881, Chilean forces under Lt. Col. Ambrosio Letelier started the first Expedition, with 700 men, to defeat the last guerrilla bands from Huánuco (April 30) to Junín. After many losses the expedition achieved very little and returned to Lima in early July,[2]:309– where Letelier and his officers were courts-martialed for diverting money into their own pockets.[115]

To annihilate the guerrillas, in January 1882 Lynch started an offensive with 5,000 men[2]:315– first towards Tarma and then southeast towards Huancayo, reaching Izcuchaca. Lynch's army suffered enormous hardships including cold temperatures, snow, and mountain sickness. On July 9, 1882 they fought the emblematic Battle of La Concepción. The Chileans had to pull back with a loss of 534 soldiers: 154 in combat, 277 of disease and 103 deserters.

During the James A. Garfield administration (March 4 – September 19, 1881), the anglophobic Secretary of State James G. Blaine wanted to advance the US presence in Latin America. He believed that England had prodded Chile into war to secure England's mining interests. Blaine proposed that Chile accept a monetary indemnity and renounce claims to Antofagasta and Tarapacá. These American attempts reinforced Garcia Calderon's refusal to discuss the matter of territorial cession. When it became known that Blaine's representative, Stephen Hurlburt, would personally profit from the settlement, it was clear that Hurlburt was complicating the peace process.[116] Frederick Theodore Frelinghuysen, Blaine's successor, publicly disavowed Blaine's policy, rejected any notion of intervening militarily in the dispute[2]:306 and accepted Chile's right to annex Tarapacá.[2]:329

Because Garcia Calderon refused to relinquish Peruvian control over Tarapacá, he was arrested. Before Garcia Calderon left Peru for Chile, he named Admiral Lizardo Montero as successor. At the same time President Pierola stepped back and supported Avelino Caceres for the Presidency. Caceres refused to serve and supported Lizardo Montero instead. Montero moved to Arequipa and in this way Garcia Calderon's arrest unified the forces of Pierola and Caceres.[80](p329)

On April 1, 1882 Miguel Iglesias, Defence Minister under Pierola, became convinced that the war had to be brought to an end or Peru would be completely devastated. He issued a manifesto, "Grito de Montan", calling for peace and in December 1882 convened a convention of representatives of the seven northern departments, where he was elected "Regenerating President"[2]:329–330[117] To support Iglesias against Montero, on April 6, 1883, Patricio Lynch started a new offensive to drive the guerrillas from central Peru and destroy Caceres' little army. The Chilean troops pursued Caceres northwest through narrow mountain passes until July 10, 1883, winning the definitive Battle of Huamachuco, the final Peruvian defeat.[2]:317–338[118]

After signing the peace treaty on October 20, 1883 with Iglesias' government, Lizardo Montero tried to resist in Arequipa with a force of 4,000 men, but when Chile's 3,000 fighters arrived, the troops in Arequipa revolted and allowed the Chileans to occupy the city. Montero opted for Bolivian asylum.[119] On October 29, 1883 the Chilean occupation of Lima ended.

Peace

Bolivian Litoral Department's flag.

Peace treaty with Peru

On October 20, 1883 hostilities between Chile and Peru formally came to an end under the Treaty of Ancón. Under the treaty's terms, Peru formally ceded the province of Tarapacá to Chile. Chile was also to occupy the provinces of Tacna and Arica for 10 years, after which a plebiscite was to be held to determine nationality. For decades thereafter, the two countries failed to agree on the terms of the plebiscite. Finally, in 1929, through US mediation, under President Herbert Hoover, an accord was reached by which Chile kept Arica. Peru re-acquired Tacna on 1929, and received some concessions on Arica in 1999.[citation needed]

Peace treaty with Bolivia

In 1884, Bolivia signed a truce that relinquished the entire Bolivian coast, the province of Antofagasta, and its nitrate, copper and other mineral deposits. A 1904 treaty made this arrangement permanent. In return, Chile agreed to build the Arica–La Paz railway, a railroad connecting the capital city of La Paz, Bolivia, with the port of Arica, and Chile guaranteed freedom of transit for Bolivian commerce through Chilean ports and territory.

Military analysis

Military strength comparison

Ships of Chile and Peru at the beginning of the War of the Pacific[120][121]
Warship tons
(L.ton)
Horse-
power
Speed
(Knots)
Armor
(Inch)
Main Artillery Built
Year
Chile Cochrane 3,560 3,000 9–12.8 up to 9 6x9 Inch 1874
Chile Blanco Encalada 3,560 3,000 9–12.8 up to 9 6x9 Inch 1874
Chile Esmeralda 854 200 8 wood 16x32–2x12-pounders 1855
Chile O'Higgins 1,101 300 12 wood 3x115–2x70–2x12–pounders 1874
Chile Chacabuco 1,101 300 11 wood 1x115–2x70–2x12–pounders 1874
Chile Covadonga 412 140 7 wood 2x70–3x40–pounders 1859
Chile Magallanes 772 260 11.5 wood 1x115–1x64–2x20–pounders 1874
Chile Abtao 1,051 300 8 wood 3x115–3x30–pounders 1870
Peru Huascar 1,130 1,200 10–11 2x300–pounders 1865
Peru Independencia 2,004 1,500 12–13 2x150–pounders 1865
Peru Manco Cápac 1,034 320 6 10 2x500–pounders 1864
Peru Atahualpa 1,034 320 6 10 2x500–pounders 1864
Peru Unión 1,150 320 13 wood 12x68–1x9–pounders 1864
Peru Pilcomayo 600 180 10.5 wood 2x70–4x40–pounders 1864

As the war began, the Peruvian Army numbered 5,241 men of all ranks, organized in seven infantry battalions, three squadrons of cavalry and two regiments of artillery.[122] The most common rifles in the army were the French Chassepot and the Minié rifles. The artillery, with a total of twenty-eight pieces, was composed mostly of British-made Blakely cannon and counted four machine guns. Much of the artillery dated from 1866, and had been bought for the Chincha Islands War against Spain.[123] The mounts used by the cavalry were small and inferior to the Chileans'.[123]

The Bolivian Army numbered no more than 2,175 soldiers, divided into three infantry regiments, two cavalry squadrons, and two sections of artillery.[124] The Colorados Battalion, President Daza's personal guard, was armed with Remington Rolling Block rifles, but the remainder carried odds and ends including flintlock muskets. The artillery had three rifled pounders and four machine guns, while the cavalry rode mules given a shortage of good horses.[123]

The regular Chilean Army was well equipped,[125][126][127][128] with 2,694 soldiers. By April 5, when Chile formally declared war, the army had grown to 7,906 men. The regular infantry was armed with the modern Belgian Comblain rifle, of which Chile had a stock of some 13,000. Chile also had Gras, Minie, Remington and Beaumont rifles which mostly fired the same caliber cartridge (11 mm). The artillery had seventy-five artillery pieces, most of which were of Krupp and Limache manufacture, and six machine guns. The cavalry used French sabers and Spencer and Winchester carbines.[129]

Strategy

Chilean military operations.

Control of the sea was Chile's key to an inevitably difficult desert war: supply by sea, including water, food, ammunition, horses, fodder and reinforcements, was quicker and easier than marching supplies through the desert or across the Bolivian high plateau. While the Chilean Navy started an economic and military blockade of the Allies' ports, Peru took the initiative and used its smaller navy as a raiding force. The raids delayed the ground invasion for six months, and forced Chile to shift its fleet from blockading to hunting and capturing the Huascar. After achieving naval supremacy, sea-mobile forces proved to be an advantage for desert warfare on the long coastline. Peruvian and Bolivian defenders found themselves hundreds of kilometers from home while Chilean forces were usually just a few kilometers from the sea.

Chilean ground strategy focused on mobility. They landed ground forces in enemy territory to raid, landed in strength to split and drive out defenders and then garrisoned the territory as the fighting moved north. Peru and Bolivia fought a defensive war maneuvering through long overland distances and relying where possible on land or coastal fortifications with gun batteries and minefields. Coastal railways reached to central Peru and telegraph lines provided a direct line to the government in Lima. During the entire conflict the Chilean armed forces sought the systematic destruction of the Peruvian infrastructure,.[130] They also received the support of the Chinese coolies immigrants who were former soldiers of Taiping Heavenly Kingdom, they fled to Peru and had been enslaved by Peruvians, who joined the Chilean Army[131] during the campaign of Lima and in the raids to the north Peruvian cities.

Design of the Peruvian Toro, the first Latin American submarine design and the first fully functional[citation needed] submarine built in Latin America.

The occupation of Peru between 1881 and 1884 took a different form. The war theater was the Peruvian Sierra, where the remains of the Peruvian Army had easy access to population, resource and supply centers far from the sea; supporting an indefinite war of attrition. The occupying Chilean force was split into small garrisons across the theater and could devote only part of its strength to hunting down dispersed pockets of resistance and the last Peruvian forces in the Sierra. After a costly occupation and prolonged counterinsurgency campaign, Chile sought a diplomatic exit. Rifts within Peruvian society and Peruvian defeat in the Battle of Huamachuco resulted in the peace treaty that ended the occupation.

The three nations claimed to adhere to the Geneva Red Cross Convention to protect the war wounded, prisoners, refugees, civilians, and other non-combatants.[132] However according to Peruvian historians, during the war, both sides commonly ordered a repaso (or repase), a method "to completely kill the dead" by executing all soldiers, regardless of injuries, of the opposing army left in the battlefield.[133] After the Battle of Tacna, Chilean troops went as far as to enter field hospitals and execute all soldiers of the opposing Peruvian and Bolivian armies.[133][134][dubious ] The repaso further incremented the number of Peruvian casualties in the battles of San Juan, Chorrillos, and Miraflores.[135][dubious ]

After the Battle of La Concepcion, the Peruvian forces "dragged the cantineras [Chilean women] into the main plaza where they stripped the women naked and then cut them to pieces. The same fate also befell the two children".[136]

In the aftermath of the Battle of Huamachuco, Chilean Colonel Alejandro Gorostiaga ordered a repase under the pretext that they formed part of an irregular army and could therefore not be considered prisoners of war.[137][138][dubious ] Peruvian Colonel Leoncio Prado was among the few soldiers who were not killed during the Huamachuco repase,.[139] He had been already captured by Chileans forces in Tarata, 1880, and, as son of Peruvian President, freed after he promised not to fight against the occupation forces again. Because of the breach of contract he was executed shortly after his second capture in Huamachuco.

Beside the Peruvian-Chilean slaughter in the irregular war after the occupation of Lima, in Peru was simmering an ethnic and social conflict between its indigenous[140] and (Chinese) coolies who had been enslaved by Peruvians[141][142] population and its white criollo and mestizo Upper class. On 2 July 1884 the guerrillero Tomás Laymes and three of his men were executed in Huancayo by Caceres's forces, because of the atrocities and crimes committed by the guerrillas against the Peruvian inhabitants of the cities and helmets.[140] In Ayacucho, Indigenous peoples stood up against "the whites" and in Chincha the Afro-Peruvians gang together against their owners in the Haciendas of "Larán", "San José" and "Hoja Redonda". Only the Peruvian army could forcibly suppress the revolt.[143] Chinese coolies formed a batallion within the Chilean Army, the "Vulcano". But there were also interetnic tensions under blacks and coolies. In Cañete, 2000 coolies from the Haciendas "Montalbán" and "Juan de Arona" were massacred by black people.[144]

Technology

Both sides employed late 19th-century military technology such as breech-loading rifles and cannons, remote-controlled land mines, armor-piercing shells, naval torpedoes, torpedo boats, and purpose-built landing craft. The second-generation of ironclads (i.e. designed after the Battle of Hampton Roads) were employed in battle for the first time. That was significant for a conflict where no major power was involved, and attracted British, French, and U.S. observers. During the war, Peru developed the Toro Submarino ("Submarine Bull"). Though completely operational, she never saw action, and was scuttled at the end to prevent her capture.

The USS Wachusett (1861) commanded by Alfred Thayer Mahan, was stationed at Callao, Peru, to protect American interests during the war's final stages. Mahan formulated his concept of sea power while reading history in an English gentlemen's club in Lima, Peru. This concept became the foundation for his celebrated The Influence of Sea Power upon History.[145][146]

Consequences

Bolivia

Eduardo Abaroa's statue pointing to the sea. The mural reads: "What once was ours, will be ours once again," and, "Hold on rotos [Chileans], because here come the Colorados of Bolivia."

Although the 1904 treaty grants Bolivia the right to tax free transport of goods and duty free access to Northern Chilean ports in addition to the Chilean Government having to build two rail-links linking La Paz to Antofagasta and Arica, nonetheless the loss of sovereignty status of the former Litoral (the coast) still remains a deeply emotional and practical issue for Bolivians. Political implications often arise, as was particularly evident during the 2003 natural gas riots. Popular belief attributed many of the country's problems to its landlocked condition; recovering the seacoast was seen as the solution to these difficulties. Numerous Bolivian Presidents pressured Chile for sovereign access to the sea. Diplomatic relations with Chile were severed on March 17, 1978, in spite of considerable commercial ties. The leading Bolivian newspaper El Diario featured at least a weekly editorial on the subject, and the Bolivian people annually celebrated a patriotic "Dia del Mar" (Day of the Sea) to remember the crippling loss. More recently, former Venezuelan president Hugo Chávez brought up the issue and his support for Bolivian irredentism by declaring "Quiero nadar en mares bolivianos." (I want to swim in Bolivian seas). Chile for its part has said that there is no question of returning any part of Bolivia's Pacific coast, stating that wars of conquest were normal at that time, that the area has been completely assimilated racially and culturally into Chile, and that Bolivia should accept the outcome of the war as a fait accompli.[147]

Chile

Chilenization of Tacna. Black cross painted on a Peruvian household, despite raising the Chilean flag.

During the war Chile dropped its claims on more than 1,000,000 km2 (390,000 sq mi) of Patagonia in the 1881 Chile/Argentina treaty, to ensure Argentina's neutrality. After the war, the Puna de Atacama dispute grew until 1899, since both Chile and Argentina claimed former Bolivian territories. On August 28, 1929, Chile returned the province of Tacna to Peru. In 1999, Chile and Peru at last agreed to fully implement the Treaty of Lima (1929), providing Peru with a port in Arica.[148]

Peru

During the occupation of Peru civilians were directly involved in the war. This mural reads: "In this town six compatriots were executed by firing squad and history cannot be changed. Eternal glory to the heroes and martyrs of Quequeña!"

According to Bruce W. Farcau, "in Peru, the wounds run less deep than in neighboring Bolivia".[citation needed] After the War of the Pacific, Peru was left without saltpeter production, the Chilean controlled production decreased to 15%, and production controlled by British investors rose to 55%.[149] According to military historian Robert L. Scheina, the Chilean plunder of Peruvian national literary and art treasures contributed to "demands of revenge among Peruvians for decades."[150] Scholar Brooke Larson pointed out that the War of the Pacific was the "first time since independence wars" that "Peru was invaded, occupied and pillaged by a foreign army" and that "no other Andean republic experienced such a costly and humiliating defeat as Peru did in the hands of Chile".[151]

The war and post-war period was one of profound political and social instability for Peru. The war shook the whole social order of Peru: armed indigenous peasants sacked and occupied haciendas of landed elite criollo "collaborationists" in the central Sierra, Chinese coolies revolted and even joined the Chilean Army, indigenous and mestizo Peruvians murdered Chinese shopkeepers in Lima, black slaves rose against their masters and fought equally the Chinese, Peruvian mobs sacked Chiclayo at the same time different criollo elite remained deeply divided in opposing camps.[152][153] The fear of disorder, opposing factions and armed peasants was for many Peruvians larger than that of the Chilean invaders.[153] In some cases, the delegations of European countries and the United States provided safety during riots and persecutions.[153]

Bibliography

See also

References

  1. ^ 19,000 in San Juan, 4,000 in Lima, 1,000 in El Callao (Pierola letter to Julio Tenaud) 4,000 in Arequipa, Col. Jose de la Torre Basadre 1964
  2. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p Sater 2007
  3. ^ a b c Sater, pp. 348–349 tables 22 and 23. The figures consider neither Chilean POWs (from "Rimac" and "Esmeralda" survivors) nor deserters
  4. ^ a b Peruvian historian Alejandro Reyes Flores, Relaciones Internacionales en el Pacifico Sur, in La Guerra del Pacifico, Volumen 1, Wilson Reategui, Alejandro Reyes & others, Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos, Lima 1979, page 110:
    Jorge Basadre respecto a este problema económico crucial dice Al realizar el estado peruano con la ley del 28 de marzo de 1875, la expropiación y monopolio de las salitreras de Tarapacá, era necesario evitar la competencia de las salitreras del Toco [in Bolivia].... Aquí es donde se internacionalizaba el conflicto, pues estas salitreras, económicamente estaban en poder de chilenos y británicos
  5. ^ Snodgrass, Mary Ellen (2013). Isabel Allende: A Literary Companion. McFarland. p. 312. ISBN 978-0786471270. 
  6. ^ Sala Guerra del Guano y el Salitre , Peruvian Naval Museum
  7. ^ Approving Treaty on offensive and defensive alliance concluded between the Republics of Peru and Chile. Lima: Congress of Peru. 1865 (Spanish)
  8. ^ Bethell, Leslie. 1993. Chile Since Independence. Cambridge University Press. pp. 13–14.
  9. ^ a b c Vergara, Jorge Iván; Gundermann, Hans (2012). "Constitution and internal dynamics of the regional identitary in Tarapacá and Los Lagos, Chile". Chungara (in Spanish) (University of Tarapacá) 44 (1): 115–134. 
  10. ^ a b Boundary treaty between Bolivia and Chile. 1866 (Spanish)
  11. ^ a b c Palma, Gabriel. Trying to 'Tax and Spend' Oneself out of the 'Dutch Disease': The Chilean Economy from the War of the Pacific to the Great Depression. p. 217-240
  12. ^ a b Historia contemporánea de Chile III. La economía: mercados empresarios y trabajadores. 2002. Gabriel Salazar and Julio Pinto. p. 25-29.
  13. ^ a b c d e f Greenhill, Robert and Miller, Rory. (1973). The Peruvian Government and the Nitrate Trade, 1873–1879. Journal of Latin American Studies 5: pp 107–131.
  14. ^ See "Private note of Riva-Agüero to Novoa", November 20, 1872. Godoy papers. Cited in Bulnes 1920, pp. 58,59
    "It is desirable that once for all, and as soon as possible, the relations between the two Republics should be defined, because it is necessary to arrive at an arrangement satisfactory to both parties. If Chile dealing with this boundary question seizes the most favorable opportunity to take possession of that coast-line, it is necessary that their plans develop before Chile is in possession of the ironclads under construction, in order that in the definite settlement of this question, the influence, which we are in a position to exert by means of our maritime preponderance may have due weight."
  15. ^ Thomas Cleland Dawson, ''The South American Republics: Peru, Chile, Bolivia, Ecuador, Venezuela, Colombia, Panama'' (G.P. Putnam's Sons, 1904), 118. Google Books. Retrieved 2012-02-28. 
  16. ^ B.W.Farcau, The Ten Cents War, page 37
  17. ^ (See full English version of the treaty in Bulnes 1920
  18. ^ Charles Edmond Akers. A History of South America, Page 439. Google Books. Retrieved 2012-02-28. 
  19. ^ Sir Clements Robert Markham (1882). The war between Peru and Chile, 1879–1882. Google Books. pp. 86–87. Retrieved 2012-02-28. 
  20. ^ Dolores Luna-Guinot, ''Conspiracy in Mendoza'' (Trafford Publishing, 2009), 316. Google Books. Retrieved 2012-02-28. 
  21. ^ Columbia studies in the social sciences — Columbia University. Faculty of Political Science, Herbert Millington — Google Books. Google Books. Retrieved 2012-02-28. 
  22. ^ Carlos Escudé y Andrés Cisneros, Historia de las Relaciones Exteriores Argentinas, Sarmiento y Tejedor proponen al Congreso la adhesión al tratado secreto peruano-boliviano del 6 de febrero de 1873, retrieved on 13 November 2013
  23. ^ Gonzalo Bulnes, Chile and Peru: the causes of the war of 1879, page 82 ff
  24. ^ Sir Clements Robert Markham, ''The war between Peru and Chile, 1879–1882'' (Sampson Low. Marston, Searle & Rivington, 1882), 87. Google Books. Retrieved 2012-02-28. 
  25. ^ Basadre 1964, p. 2282 "The beginning of the Peruvian naval inferiority and lack of initiative for preventive war":
    Won by Chile's supremacy at sea that year of 1874 contributed to the endeavor to avoid any problem Peru
  26. ^ Basadre 1964, p. 2286, "Peru in 1874 and 1878 avoid the alliance with Argentina":
    In August, September and October 1875 ... Peru will hasten to take footdragging and even inhibitory for signing the treaty with that republic [Argentina] in order to retain their freedom of action. The existence of the Chilean ironclads perhaps explains the difference between this attitude and previous
    In 1878 [the Peruvian government] refused to deliver the items ship orders by the Argentine government and collaborate in the search for a peaceful solution...
  27. ^ Harold Blackmore, The Politics of Nitrate in Chile, Pressure Groups and Policies, 1870-1896, Some unanswered Questions
  28. ^ Querejazu 1979, p. 175
  29. ^ Querejazu 1979, p. 211
  30. ^ The Bolivia-Chile-Peru Dispute in the Atacama Desert, Ronald Bruce St. John, page 12-13
  31. ^ William F. Sater, "Andean Tragedy", page 37 and ff
  32. ^ Leslie Bethell, The Cambridge History of Latin America, 2009, page 541
  33. ^ A History of the British Presence in Chile: From Bloody Mary to Charles Darwin and the Decline of British Influence, William Edmundson, 2009, ISBN 0230101216, 9780230101210, 288 pages, page 160
  34. ^ Luis Ortega, "Los Empresarios, la politica y los origenes de la Guerra del Pacifico", Flacso, Santiago de Chile, 1984, page 17
  35. ^ Simon Collier, A History of Chile, 1808-1994, Cambridge University Press, 1996 - Chile - 427 pages
  36. ^ Querejazu 1979, p. 182
  37. ^ Retrospective of landlocked sea. A critical view on how the conflict started. Jorge Gumucio. La Paz, Bolivia
  38. ^ Chile-Bolivia-Peru: The War of the Pacific. June 2004. Patricio Valdivieso. Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Chile
  39. ^ a b Employers, policy, and the Pacific War. Luis Ortega. Santiago de Chile. 1984. (Page 18. File Antony Gibbs & Sons AGA. Valparaiso to Londres. Private N 25. March 6, 1878)
  40. ^ (Spanish) Boundary Treaty of 1866 between Chile and Bolivia
  41. ^ Querejazu 1979, p. 214
  42. ^ Edmundson, William (2011). The Nitrate King: A Biography of "Colonel" John Thomas North. Palgrave Macmillan. p. 59. ISBN 978-0230112803. 
  43. ^ Barros Arana 1881a, p. 59
  44. ^ Bulnes 1920, pp. 42
  45. ^ War of the Pacific Chilean historian Gonzalo Bulnes. Antofagasta and Tarapacá. 1911.
    Tengo una buena noticia que darle. He fregado a los gringos (se refiere a Mr. Hicks) decretando la reivindicacion de las salitreras i no podran quitarnoslas por mas que se esfuerce el mundo entero. Espero que Chile no intervendra en este asunto... pero si nos declara la guerra podemos contar con el apoyo del Peru a quien exijiremos el cumplimiento del Tratado secreto. Con este objeto voi a mandar a Lima a Reyes 0rtiz. Ya ve Ud. como le doi buenas noticias que Ud. me ha de agradecer eternamente i como le dejo dicho los gringos estan completamente fregados i los chilenos tienen que morder i reclamar nada mas.
  46. ^ a b c War of the Pacific. Francisco A. Machuca. Valparaíso "Mientras el señor Lavalle gozaba de relativa tregua, y estudiaba las causas de la poca prisa del Gobierno chileno para continuar las negociaciones, éste, en constante comunicación con nuestro Ministro Godoy, quedaba impuesto el 18 de Marzo, por comunicación del día anterior, 17, de la existencia del pacto secreto, y de una nota clara y terminante de nuestro Ministro al Gobierno de Lima...Por fin, el 31 de Marzo, el señor Lavalle se apersonó al señor Ministro de Relaciones y le dió conocimiento del tratado secreto, que acababa de recibir de Lima, en circunstancia que hacía días, el general Prado le había confesado su existencia a nuestro Ministro Godoy, en una conferencia tenida en Chorrillos."
  47. ^ Current History (1922) (page 450) The New York Times
  48. ^ Edwin Montefiore Borchard, Opinion on the controversy between Peru and Chile (Washington, 1920), p. 13.
  49. ^ "The Peruvian government, fearful of being dragged into a war for which it was ill-prepared, attempted to mediate the dispute, and sent envoy Jose Antonio de Lavalle to Santiago to meet with Chilean president Anibal Pinto. [...] Briefly, though, the year 1879 found Chile almost as ill-prepare for war as Peru and Bolivia." See William Skuban, Lines in the Sand (Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 2007), p. 12.
  50. ^ William F. Sater in "Andean Tragedy", page 28
  51. ^ Bruce W. Farcau, "The Ten Cents War", page 42
  52. ^ Jorge Besadre, "Historia de la Republica, La guerra con Chile"
  53. ^ Querejazu 1979, p. 230
  54. ^ Bulnes 1920, pp. 147
  55. ^ Guerra del Pacífico, Tomo 1: De Antofagasta a Tarapacá. Page 148. Bulnes Gonzalo.
  56. ^ Peruvian Congress March 24, 1879
  57. ^ William Jefferson Dennis, pp. 79–80. Google Books. Retrieved 2012-02-28. 
  58. ^ Farcau 2000, p. 65
    As the earlier discussion of the geography of the Atacama region illustrates, control of the sea lanes along the coast would be absolutely vital to the success of a land campaign there
  59. ^ Vargas Valenzuela, José (1974). Tradición naval del pueblo de Bolivia. Bolivia: Editorial Los Amigos del Libro. p. 61. Retrieved January 17, 2010. 
  60. ^ Sater 2007, p. 102 and ff
    "... to anyone willing to sail under Bolivia's colors ..."
  61. ^ Farcau 2000, pp. 55–56
  62. ^ López Urrutia, Carlos (2003). La Guerra del Pacífico, 1879–1884. Ristre Editorial. pp. 37–42. Retrieved January 17, 2010. 
  63. ^ Spila, Benedetto (1883). Chile en la guerra del Pacífico. Valparaíso, Chile: Impr. del Nuevo Mercurio. p. 94. Retrieved January 17, 2010. 
  64. ^ Lawrence A. Clayton, Grace: W.R. Grace & Co., the formative years, 1850–1930, Page 108. Google Books. Retrieved 2012-02-28.  Direct Quote
    "Miguel Grau, Peruvian hero of the naval Battle of Iquique. His modern, heavily armed monitor Huáscar battered the Chilean frigate Esmeralda into a sinking hulk, thereby breaking the Chilean naval blockade of Iquique and rallying the morale of the Peruvian nation during the early stages of the War of the Pacific."
  65. ^ Latin America: a general history. Google Books. p. 663. Retrieved 2012-03-26.  Direct Quote
    "Much as Admiral Grau and the heroic vessel Huáscar did to lift Peruvian spirits, their deeds did not prevent the Chilean conquest of the nitrate-laden southern provinces, Tacna, Arica, and Tarapaca.."
  66. ^ Milla Batres 1994, p. 71
  67. ^ Arosemena Garland, Geraldo (1962). El Almirante Miguel Grau. Lima, Peru: Ministerio de Educación Pública. p. 188. Retrieved January 17, 2009. 
  68. ^ Instituto de Estudios Histórico-Marítimos del Perú 2004, p. 188
  69. ^ Farcau 2000, p. 214
  70. ^ a b Instituto de Estudios Histórico-Marítimos del Perú 2004
  71. ^ Mellafe Maturana, Rafael; Mauricio Pelayo González (2007). La guerra del Pacífico: en imágenes, relatos, testimonios. Santiago, Chile: Ediciones Centro de Estudios Bicentenario. p. 435. ISBN 978-956-8147-33-4. Retrieved January 18, 2009. 
  72. ^ López Urrutia, Carlos; Jorge Ortíz Sotelo (2005). Monitor Huáscar: una historia compartida (1865–2005). Lima, Peru: Asociación de Historia Marítima y Naval Iberoamericana. p. 192. Retrieved January 18, 2009. 
  73. ^ Historia del Ejército de Chile, Volume 6. Santiago, Chile: Estado Mayor General del Ejército. 1980. p. 54. Retrieved January 18, 2009. 
  74. ^ Luna Vegas, Emilio (1978). Cáceres, genio militar. Peru: Librería Editorial Minerva-Miraflores. p. 19. Retrieved July 22, 2009. 
  75. ^ Valdés Vergara, Francisco (1908). Historia de Chile para la enseñanza primaria. California: Sociedad "Imprenta y litografía Universo". p. 319. Retrieved July 22, 2009. 
  76. ^ Milla Batres 1994, p. 73
  77. ^ Elías Murguía, Julio J. (1980). Marinos peruanos en Arica. Peru: Instituto de Estudios Histórico-Maritimos del Perú. p. 38. Retrieved July 22, 2009. 
  78. ^ Paz Soldán, Juan Pedro (July 1919). "El hundimiento de la Escuadra Peruana – 16 de enero de 1881". El Mercurio Peruano — Revista Mensual de Ciencias Sociales y Letras (Lima, Perú) III (13): 44–47. Retrieved 2011-09-24. 
  79. ^ Rubilar Luengo, Mauricio E. (2004), "Guerra y diplomacia: las relaciones chileno-colombianas durante la guerra y postguerra del Pacífico (1879–1886)", Revista Universum (in Spanish) 19 (1): 148–175 
  80. ^ a b Sater 2007, p. 172-
  81. ^ Sater 2007, p. 204
    "only the lack of allied cavalry prevented Buendia's [Peruvian] men from finishing off the few remaining survivors"
  82. ^ Sater 2007, p. 205
    "The victorious troops had no choice, as Colonel Suarez ruefully admitted, but to abandon Tarapacá to the Chileans".
  83. ^ Farcau 2000, p. 119
  84. ^ Sater 2007, p. 181
    "not only a economic bonanza but also a diplomatic asset that could barter in return for Peru ending the war".
  85. ^ Farcau 2000, p. 120
    "He [Prado] was met with widespread rioting in the capital in protest over the administration's abysmal handling of the war to date"
  86. ^ Farcau 2000, p. 120
    "...Prado suddenly gathered up his belongings ... and took a ship ..."
  87. ^ Farcau 2000, p. 121
    "Pierola ... mounted an assault on the Palace but ... leaving more than three hundred corpses ..."
  88. ^ Sater 2007, p. 208
    "Daza received a telegram from Camacho, informing him that the army no longer ..."
  89. ^ Farcau 2000, p. 130
    "In the early morning hours of the 31. December 1879 ..."
  90. ^ Sater 2007, p. 222
    "Baquedano could not simply bypass the Peruvian troops, whose presence threatened Moquegua as well as the communications network extending southeast across the Locumba Valley to Tacna and northwest to Arequipa and northeast to Bolivia"
  91. ^ Farcau 2000, p. 138 specifies 3,100 men in Arequipa, 2,000 men in Arica and 9,000 men in Tacna, but this figures contradict the total numbers given (below) by William F. Sater in page 229
  92. ^ Farcau 2000, p. 138
    "...it became evident that there was a total lack of the necessary transport for even the minimum amount of supplies and water"
  93. ^ Sater 2007, p. 227
    "The allied force, he [Campero] concluded lacked sufficient transport to move into the field its artillery as well as its rations and, more significantly, its supplies of water"
  94. ^ Farcau 2000, p. 1147
  95. ^ Farcau 2000, p. 152
    "Lynch's force consisted f the 1° Line Regiment and the Regiments "Talca" and "Colchagua", a battery of mountain howitzers, and a small cavalry squadron for a total of twenty-two hundred man"
  96. ^ Barros Arana 1881b, p. 98
    "[The Chilean government thought that it was possible to demonstrate to the enemy the futility of any defense of Peruvian territory not only against the whole [Chilean] army but also against small [Chilean] divisions. That was the purpose of the expedition, which the claims, insults, and affliction in the official documents of Peru and in the press had made famous"
    (Original: "[El gobierno chileno] Creía entonces que todavía era posible demostrar prácticamente al enemigo la imposibilidad en que se hallaba para defender el territorio peruano no ya contra un ejército numeroso sino contra pequeñas divisiones. Este fué el objeto de una espedicion que las quejas, los insultos i las lamentaciones de los documentos oficiales del Perú, i de los escritos de su prensa, han hecho famosa.")
  97. ^ Basadre 1964, p. 2475
  98. ^ Barros Arana 1881a quotes Johann Caspar Bluntschli:
    "Bluntschili (Derecho internacional codificado) dice espresamente lo que sigue: Árt. 544. Cuando el enemigo ha tomado posesión efectiva de una parte del territorio, el gobierno del otro estado deja de ejercer alli el poder. Los habitantes del territorio ocupado están eximidos de todos los deberes i obligaciones respecto del gobierno anterior, i están obligados a obedecer a los jefes del ejército de ocupación."
  99. ^ Valdes Arroyo, Flor de Maria (2004). Las relaciones entre el Perú e Italia (1821–2002) (in Spanish). Lima, Peru: Fondo Editorial de la Pontificia Universidad Catolica del Peru. p. 97. ISBN 978-9972-42-626-1. 
  100. ^ Farcau 2000, p. 153
  101. ^ Imperial Skirmishes, page 132. Google Books. Retrieved 2012-02-28. 
  102. ^ John Lawrence Rector The history of Chile page 102
  103. ^ Jason Zorbas The influence of domestic politics on America's Chilean policy during the War of the Pacific page 22:
    "The Chilean public demanded that Lima be taken. Bloodlust ran high, as some of the press demanded that the Moneda (the Chilean equivalent of the White House) ""exterminate the enemy the same as Great Britain and Argentina had annihilated the Zulus and the Indians."" The government struggled to satisfy the public demands for an invasion. During the last months of 1880, the Chilean armed forces prepared for a full invasion of Peru and as the new year arrived the Chilean forces were poised outside Lima and prepared to invade the capital"
  104. ^ Farcau 2000, pp. 149–150
    "Despite this expectations ..."
  105. ^ Farcau 2000, p. 157
    "... until all vestiges of organized military force in Peru had been destroyed and the capital occupied"
  106. ^ La Guerra del Pacífico en imágenes, relatos, testimonios; p. 237
  107. ^ Basadre, Jorge (2000). "La Verdadera Epopeya". Retrieved 2008. 
  108. ^ Sater 2007, p. 302
    "which he [Nicolás de Piérola] did not"
  109. ^ Hugh Chisholm. "Encyclopædia Britannica: Lima". Google Books. Retrieved 2008-12-04. 
  110. ^ Dan Collyns (November 7, 2007). "Chile returns looted Peru books". BBC. Retrieved 2007-11-10. 
  111. ^ Farcau 2000, p. 173
  112. ^ John Edwin Fagg Latin America: a general history" page 860
  113. ^ Steve J. Stern Resistance, rebellion, and consciousness in the Andean peasant world page 241
  114. ^ Sater 1986, p. 180
    "Even in the midst of the Bolivian crisis, congressional elections occurred in schedule. In 1881, the nation selected a new president, Domingo Santa Maria, and the following year, elected a new congress"
  115. ^ Sater 2007, p. 312
    "Consequently, the court stripped Letelier of his rank, sentenced him to six years in jail, and demanded restitution"
  116. ^ Sater 2007, pp. 304–306
    "The anglophobic secretary of state ..."
  117. ^ Farcau 2000, pp. 181–182
  118. ^ Farcau 2000, pp. 183–187
  119. ^ Sater 1986, p. 220
    "Since Montero was not a party to the Treaty of Ancon ..."
  120. ^ Sater 2007, pp. 113–114
    "There are numerous differences of opinion as to the ships' speed and armament. Some of these differences can be attributed to the fact that the various sources may have been evaluating the ships at different times."
  121. ^ Cap. Jorge Ortiz Sotelo, Miguel Grau, page 70–71.
  122. ^ English 1985, p. 372
  123. ^ a b c Scheina 2003, p. 377
  124. ^ Farcau 2000, p. 57
  125. ^ Farcau 2000, p. 48
  126. ^ English 1985, p. 75
  127. ^ Stanislav Andreski Wars, revolutions, dictatorships: studies of historical and contemporary problems from a comparative viewpoint page 105:
    (...) Chile's army and fleet were better equipped, organized and commanded(...)
  128. ^ Helen Miller Bailey, Abraham Phineas Nasatir Latin America: the development of its civilization page 492:
    Chile was a much more modernized nation with better-trained and better-equipped
  129. ^ Scheina 2003, pp. 376–377
  130. ^ Varas, José Antonio, ed. (1884). Recopilación de leyes, órdenes y decretos supremos concernientes al ejército, desde enero de 1878 a fin de 1883. pp. 228–229. 
  131. ^ Dorothea, Martin. "Chinese Migration into Latin America – Diaspora or Sojourns in Peru?". Appalachian State University. p. 10. Retrieved September 25, 2011. 
  132. ^ Sater 2007, p. 90
    "Happily for the wounded the three warring nations adhered to the Geneva Convention."
  133. ^ a b Narracion histórica de la guerra de Chile contra el Perú y Bolivia. Por ... – Mariano Felipe Paz Soldán – Google Books. Books.google.com. 2008-02-21. Retrieved 2012-11-02. 
  134. ^ El expansionismo de Chile en el Cono Sur – Humberto Cayoja Riart – Google Boeken. Books.google.com. Retrieved 2012-11-02. 
  135. ^ Historia del patriotismo, valor y heroнsmo de la Naciуn peruana en la guerra ... – Carlos Marнa Muсiz – Google Books. Books.google.com. 2007-01-01. Retrieved 2012-11-02. 
  136. ^ W. Sater, Andean Tragedy, page 321
  137. ^ Historia de la Repъblica del Perъ, 1822–1933 – Jorge Basadre – Google Books. Books.google.com. 2009-12-04. Retrieved 2012-11-02. 
  138. ^ Cáceres, Andrés. "Memorias de la guerra del 79" pág. 231
  139. ^ Revista de la Sociedad Fundadores de la Independencia, Vencedores el Dos de ... – Fundadores de la Independencia – Google Boeken. Books.google.com. Retrieved 2012-11-02. 
  140. ^ a b Hugo Pereira, Una revisión histográfica de la ejecución del guerrillero Tomás Laymes, in Trabajos sobre la Guerra del Pacífico, , Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú. page 269 and ff.
  141. ^ Oliver García Meza, Los chinos en la Guerra del Pacífico, Revista Marina, retrieved on 12 November 2013
  142. ^ B.W Farcau, The Ten Cents War, page 160 and 165
  143. ^ Ramon Aranda de los Rios, Carmela Sotomayor Roggero, Una sublevación negra en Chincha: 1879, pages 238 & ff in "La Guerra del Pacífico", Volumen 1, Wilson Reategui, Wilfredo Kapsoli & others, Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos, Lima, 1979
  144. ^ Wilfredo Kapsoli, El Peru en una coyuntura de crisis, 1879-1883, pages 35-36 in "La Guerra del Pacífico", Volumen 1, Wilson Reategui, Wilfredo Kapsoli & others, Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos, Lima, 1979
  145. ^ The Ambiguous Relationship: Theodore Roosevelt and Alfred Thayer Mahan by Richard W. Turk; Greenwood Press, 1987. 183 pgs. page 10
  146. ^ Larrie D. Ferreiro 'Mahan and the "English Club" of Lima, Peru: The Genesis of The Influence of Sea Power upon History', The Journal of Military History – Volume 72, Number 3, July 2008, pp. 901–906
  147. ^ "El día del mar se recordará con más que un tradicional desfile cívico" (in Spanish). Bolpress. 15 March 2006. p. 1. Retrieved October 2, 2009. 
  148. ^ Dominguez, Jorge et al. 2003 Boundary Disputes in Latin America. United States Washington, D.C.: Institute of Peace.
  149. ^ British Influence on the Salt: The Origin, Nature and Decline, Soto Cárdenas, Alejandro. Santiago : Ed. University of Santiago de Chile, 1998. Page 50
  150. ^ Scheina 2003, p. 388
  151. ^ Larson, Brooke. 2004. Trials of Nation Making: Liberalism, Race and Ethnicity in the Andes, 1810–1910. Page 178.
  152. ^ Taylor, Lewis. Indigenous Peasant Rebellions in Peru during the 1880s
  153. ^ a b c Bonilla, Heraclio. 1978. The National and Colonial Problem in Peru. Past and Present

External links