Baltimore Crisis 1891

Feb 2019
7
Quitman, Mississippi
Does anyone know the details on the United States potential War with Chile in 1891? General John Schofield who was commanding general of the United States Army had said what benefit would the United States get in a war with a weak nation.
 

johnincornwall

Ad Honorem
Nov 2010
7,676
Cornwall
I can only read Wiki like you

Baltimore crisis - Wikipedia

Doesn't look like a big deal. Fairly recently I read an account of the invasion of Cuba and the Spanish - American War, The US had to train a whole army for this, the post civil war forces being absolutely tiny (26,000?). So whilst after the War of the Pacific the Chileans had a stronger navy in the region than the US and in 1891 positions had reversed somewhat, I wouldn't get too hung up on Chile being 'weaker'. It would probably have been a bad idea and hence 75,000 dollars seems to have settled it
 

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
21,715
SoCal
I can only read Wiki like you

Baltimore crisis - Wikipedia

Doesn't look like a big deal. Fairly recently I read an account of the invasion of Cuba and the Spanish - American War, The US had to train a whole army for this, the post civil war forces being absolutely tiny (26,000?). So whilst after the War of the Pacific the Chileans had a stronger navy in the region than the US and in 1891 positions had reversed somewhat, I wouldn't get too hung up on Chile being 'weaker'. It would probably have been a bad idea and hence 75,000 dollars seems to have settled it
Not quite on topic, but since we're talking about Chilean-US relations, I have a question for you, John:

I know that during James A. Garfield's brief Presidency, he and his Secretary of State James G. Blaine were hoping to negotiate an end settlement to the War of the Pacific which would result in no territorial losses for Peru. Garfield's assassination ended these plans due to the lack of interest that his successor, Charles A. Arthur, gave to this issue (Blaine resigned a couple of months after Arthur became President). Had Garfield lived, do you think that he and Blaine would have been successful in this goal of theirs?
 
Feb 2019
7
Quitman, Mississippi
I can only read Wiki like you

Baltimore crisis - Wikipedia

Doesn't look like a big deal. Fairly recently I read an account of the invasion of Cuba and the Spanish - American War, The US had to train a whole army for this, the post civil war forces being absolutely tiny (26,000?). So whilst after the War of the Pacific the Chileans had a stronger navy in the region than the US and in 1891 positions had reversed somewhat, I wouldn't get too hung up on Chile being 'weaker'. It would probably have been a bad idea and hence 75,000 dollars seems to have settled it
Hung up on weaker lol! We would have mopped the floor up with them! We could have added them to our list of overseas possessions! Just like a military guy told back when we had the threat of a potential war with North Korea - within a hour we would have knocked out all their military installations with our Air Force - dont let the liberal Democrats fool you - our military is powerful!
 
Feb 2019
7
Quitman, Mississippi
On tra
Hung up on weaker lol! We would have mopped the floor up with them! We could have added them to our list of overseas possessions! Just like a military guy told back when we had the threat of a potential war with North Korea - within a hour we would have knocked out all their military installations with our Air Force - dont let the liberal Democrats fool you - our military is powerful!
on training an army for Cuba I had read the army still was using wool uniforms from the Indian Wars!
 

betgo

Ad Honorem
Jul 2011
6,329
Hung up on weaker lol! We would have mopped the floor up with them! We could have added them to our list of overseas possessions! Just like a military guy told back when we had the threat of a potential war with North Korea - within a hour we would have knocked out all their military installations with our Air Force - dont let the liberal Democrats fool you - our military is powerful!
The US military then was not the US military now. However, it made short work of Spain, so I am sure Chile would have been easier. Any European power could easily defeat Chile or whatever. Those countries were protected by the the US and UK.
 

Tulius

Ad Honorem
May 2016
5,877
Portugal
Hung up on weaker lol! We would have mopped the floor up with them! We could have added them to our list of overseas possessions! Just like a military guy told back when we had the threat of a potential war with North Korea - within a hour we would have knocked out all their military installations with our Air Force - dont let the liberal Democrats fool you - our military is powerful!
That is pretty speculative… to say the least. Today many persons that like history also like historical game simulations forgetting that it is not the same. You can conquer the world in a game, in reality it wasn’t that easy.
 

betgo

Ad Honorem
Jul 2011
6,329
That is pretty speculative… to say the least. Today many persons that like history also like historical game simulations forgetting that it is not the same. You can conquer the world in a game, in reality it wasn’t that easy.
Yes, well I am sure a lot of people thought we could win in Vietnam easily, but it didn't work out that way.

However, it is ridiculous to imply that the US wasn't a way stronger power than Chile in 1891. It didn't have a large standing army because it wasn't worried about a Mexican or Canadian invasion. Look at the forces on both sides in the American Civil War, and the one-sidedness of the Mexican and Spanish American Wars.

Obviously, there was no point in a war with Chile. Countries don't usually go to war over incidents like that, but they may use incidents as pretexts.
 

Tulius

Ad Honorem
May 2016
5,877
Portugal
Yes, well I am sure a lot of people thought we could win in Vietnam easily, but it didn't work out that way.

However, it is ridiculous to imply that the US wasn't a way stronger power than Chile in 1891. It didn't have a large standing army because it wasn't worried about a Mexican or Canadian invasion. Look at the forces on both sides in the American Civil War, and the one-sidedness of the Mexican and Spanish American Wars.

Obviously, there was no point in a war with Chile. Countries don't usually go to war over incidents like that, but they may use incidents as pretexts.

Obviously that I didn’t imply that the USA weren’t a bigger power than Chile by the end of the 19th century, even if at some point Chile could had a best suited navy as stated on the Wikipedia entry. I am implying is that war is a continuation of politics by other means, quoting or paraphrasing Clausewitz. And that any action implies a reaction on other world players.

As for small incidents becoming casus belli for major conflicts, we saw that often. The case of the Maine comes to my mind, for the USA in these timelines.