Talk:Peru–Bolivian Confederation

Flag

There's an error on the flag.

• Its background must be red or a darkest color, nor a kind of purple.
• About the coats of arms:
  • North Peru Coat of Arms must be like this (more beauty, of course):

• • North Peru CoA its almost good, but it must have flags on the exterior.
  • Bolivian CoA it's not good. It must be, more or less, like this:

• The olive is not a cicle, there's the example:

Image deleted

Please, if there's more questions, go to my user talk. --Huhsunqu 05:32, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The bolivian coat of arms at this moment had 10 stars. Now it have 9 because they lost the department of Litoral (now, Antofagasta, Chile). Also the article didn't detailed about the problems with Chile, the war and the disolution of the Confederacy --KRATK 22:10, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Audiencia de Charcas had no title to the Pacific Ocean

For Messhermit, another prove that Bolivia did not held any title to access the Pacific Ocean...(if you still don't have enough). It's from 1559, here you have a "decreto real" from the spanish King Felipe the second, when he defined the newly created Audiencia de Charcas (Bolivia) where he defined the limits between the "Audiencia de Lima" (Peru) and "Audiencia de Chile":

"Porque es bien que se sepa los límites con que dicha Audiencia (Lima)...declaramos y mandamos que tenga por distrito todo lo que de la provincia de Chile, con los puertos que de la ciudad de Lima hasta las dichas provincias de Chile y los lugares de la costa della".

You CLEARLY see that Peru and Chile limited together by order of the spanish King... no space for any other country inbetween.--84.58.58.214 02:11, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

where is the link? Messhermit 03:00, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

---

Here is the truth, extracted from a US source:

Desde 1542 aproximadamente, lo que es el actual territorio boliviano dependió administrativa y jurídicamente del Virreinato Peruano. Por su gran extensión, fue dividido en varias audiencias. En 1561 se creó la Real Audiencia de Charcas que dependió del Virreinato Peruano hasta el año 1776. La jurisdicción territorial de la Audiencia de Charcas se extendía desde el Cuzco, al norte, hasta Buenos Aires (incluyendo Paraguay y Tucumán) al sur y desde el Océano Pacífico (Atacama) al oeste, hasta la frontera con el Brasil, al este.[1]

LAS INTENDENCIAS Y LOS PARTIDOS EN LA AUDIENCIA DE CHARCAS (1776) [2]

Intendencia del Potosí: Chayanta, Atacama, Chichas, Porco, Lípez.

---

US SOURCE? made by Rossana Barragán, Ximena Medinaceli, Seemin Qayum, Silvia Arze? Bolivians, probably students or "local historians"? LOL, you are kidding me... I am talking about "DECRETOS" from the only authority in that time, which was spain and the King. Not any modern kind of interpretation of Bolivians, who surely will tell you that they had access to the sea. I could also publish a site, which tells that your house is my properity. means...Source of ZERO value. I have given you extracts of the "Recopilacion: Leyes de Indias" which defined all matters of spanish colonies, So please, a bit more seriousness.

---

Besides your hate against bolivians, you have not proved anything of the stated before as wrong. Messhermit 20:05, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

---

Another Example:

Luego –por un conflicto suscitado en Cuzco con la Audiencia de Lima- el mismo Rey- Felipe II- modificó la jurisdicción y estableció que gobernaría al territorio del norte hasta el Collao, provincia de Sayabamba y Carabaya; al noroeste las provincias de Moxos y Chunchos; al este las zonas del desierto de Atacama hasta el Mar del Sur – Océano Pacífico- y sudeste las tierras del Chaco y las jurisdicciones de Tucumán, Juríes y Diaguitas.- Su procedimiento fue establecido mediante la Real Provisión dictada por don Felipe II en Monzón de Aragón, el 4 de octubre de 1563. [3]

And a map of the Time: [4] Can you now contradict those facts? I believe you can't. Messhermit 03:00, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

---

its the same page... again the same girls telling that the coast belonged to them, but they don't show any COMPLETE AND ORIGINAL CITATION that Audiencia had any access to the Pacific Ocean, only THEIR OWN INTERPRETATION, Value : 0

---

girls? Once again putting personal feelings and not concrete facts on the table? childish... Links? none so far, only POV Messhermit 20:05, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

---

But wait, there is even more:

Los límites originales de la Audiencia de Charcas (de la cual surgió Bolivia) fueron establecidos por medio de la Real Cédula de 29 de agosto de 1559. En parte, dice: "En la ciudad de La Plata de la Nueva Toledo resida otra nuestra Audiencia y Cancillería Real [...], la cual tenga por distrito la Provincia de los Charcas y todo el Collao [...], partiendo términos: por el septentrión con la Real Audiencia de Lima y provincias no descubiertas; por el Mediodía, con la Real Audiencia de Chile, y por Levante y Poniente con los dos mares del norte y del sur".

Como se ve, la Real Audiencia de Charcas se hallaba entre la Audiencia de Lima y la de Santiago, y, por lo tanto, daba al Mar del Sur (el Océano Pacífico)

Por consiguiente, cuando nació la República de Bolivia, el 6 de agosto de 1825, su litoral se extendía desde el río Loa hasta el río Salado o Paposo, tal como se consigna en cédulas reales y en abundantes datos históricos. [5]

---

now we are getting nearer to start a real analyse, its the same text from above, but at least a citation, eventhough its not complete...: you make a TRIMMED (!) citation from the "decretos", you quoted:

"...la cual tenga por distrito la Provincia de los Charcas y todo el Collao [...], partiendo términos: por el septentrión con la Real Audiencia de Lima y provincias no descubiertas; por el Mediodía, con la Real Audiencia de Chile, y por Levante y Poniente con los dos mares del norte y del sur"

this is knowingly the "strongest" arguement that Bolivia has to support its claim to the pacific ocean, and firstly sounds terribly good for the Bolivian position, right? But you know how the complete sentence is (where you KNOWINGLY OR NOT put [...])? I will give you the complete citation of your TRIMMED version:

"tenga por distrito la provincia de Charcas y todo el Collao DESDE EL PUEBLO DE AYAVIRE POR EL CAMINO DE HURCOSUYO, DESDE EL PUEBLO DE ASSILLO POR EL CAMINO DE HUMASUYO, DESDE ATUNCANA POR EL CAMINO DE AREQUIPA HACIA LA PARTE DE LOS CHARCAS, INCLUSIVE CON LAS PROVINCIAS DE SANGABANA, CARABAYA, JURIES Y DIEGUITAS, MOJOS Y CHUNCHOS, Y SANTA CRUZ DE LA SIERRA, partiendo términos, por el septentrión con la Real Audiencia de Lima y provincias no descubiertas, por el mediodía con la Real Audiencia de Chile y por el levante y poniente con los mares del Norte y del Sur y línea de la demarcación entre las coronas de los reinos de Castilla y Portugal por la parte de la provincia de Santa Cruz del Brasil."

If you are a honest man and really interested in truth (I still hope), some bells should now ring in your head... but you see this shades a totally different light on the case, as it clearly defines a frontier along a specific interior landpath "...por distrito(interior landpath)partiendo terminos" . Why did you intentionally leave this out? Or did you probably find the TRIMMED version on a Bolivian page? The full citation clearly reveals, that Charcas was a completely mediteranean territory. You probably know (guess you are somehow experienced in this material): North sea =(Atlantic)= East South Sea = (Pacific)= West

In this text, they are directional explainations. You surely know that the Audiencia de Charcas itself ...NEVER EVER... reached the Atlantic Ocean (North Sea) in the east, you will SURELY agree on this. Same logic applies for the Pacific (South Sea) in the west and is fully logical, when you quote the interior path defining the frontier, which was missing in your text, as it is giving North-South & East-West indications.

---

Nice interpretation! It clearly makes you think that its right.... Any link to prove that? I see none so far... Messhermit 20:05, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

---

And let us not forget what Simón Bolívar write when he stablished the Bolivian Republic:

Considerando:

• Primero: Que estas provincias no tienen un puerto habilitado;
• Segundo: Que en el Partido de Atacama se encuentra el denominado Cobija, que proporciona muchas ventajas;
• Tercero: Que es justa recompensa al mérito contraído por el Gran Mariscal de Ayacucho, la aplicación de su nombre al anunciado puerto, y oída la diputación permanente;
• Decreto:
• 1º Quedará habilitado desde le primero de enero entrante, por puerto mayor de estas provincias, con el nombre de "Puerto La Mar", el de Cobija.
• 2º Se arreglarán allí las oficinas correspondientes a la Hacienda Pública.
• 3º El Gran Mariscal de Ayacucho, Antonio José de Sucre, queda encargado de la ejecución de este decreto. Imprímase, publíquese y circúlese.

Dado en el Palacio de Gobierno de Chuquisaca a 28 de diciembre de 1825--Simón Bolívar[6]

And the list can go on and on... Messhermit 03:11, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

---

this man was really funny, you already mentioned him... but I repeat, Bolivar never had souverignity over the COMPLETE southamerican territory to "Award Bolivia" (like you once said) with any external territories he just felt like (guess then he penalized Chile, if he awarded Bolivia...?!?!). His establishment is the best prove and revelation, that Bolivia (Alto Peru) never had real access to these territories, from one day to the other he dictated incorporation, renaming, foundation of settlements etc... giving evidence of no previously existing bond to this place. Conclusion: I can't award my girlfriend with a house, which is your property. Herewith all your points have been rebuted. Cheers and wish you a nice evening --194.203.215.254 18:21, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

---

Nice yoke! trust me, the example that you just gave is only that.

• The 1st example involves Felipe II, king of Spain. He established Atacama as apart of the Audiencia de Charcas.
• The 2nd example involves Simón Bolivar, who established the Republic of Bolivia after having defeated the remnants of the Spaniard Army. He used the principle of Utti posidettis, and awarded Bolivia all the territory that was part of the Audiencia de Charcas. This was approved by representatives of Peru and Argentina (at that time, Rio de la Plata).

SImón Bolivar was a great man. Your jokes only show how ignorant in the topic you are. BTW, do us a favor and come back when you learn to respect bolvians and reality. Messhermit 20:05, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

---

Our friends here pretend to impose their ilussion that Bolivia was created without an access to the Pacific Ocean. Isn't this a lame attemp to contradict history? SEVERAL MAPS can be found, depicting Peru and Bolivia (with interesting shapes). In all of them, Atacama is Bolivian.... so, we must listen to only 2 individuals and ignore the overwhelming historical evidence that prove the ownership of Atacama?

Map of Peru and Bolivia (Around 1856) Map of Independent Latin America Map of Colonial Latin America Map of Peru and Bolivia (date Unknown) Map of Peru, Bolivia, Ecuador and Brazil Map of Peru and Bolivia

Not from Bolivian Pages. Interesting .... Messhermit 20:31, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Different flag than Spanish Wiki

Our flag is differnt then the flag on the Spanish and Dutch Wikis. I trust the other wikis more, because since it is part of the histories of a Spanish Speaking countries, it is more likely that people who would know about such things would edit the Spanish Wiki, not to mention two wikis use it vs just the English Wiki. --ThrashedParanoid

Personally, I don't agree with the flag that is displayed on Wiki:Es . The main reason is because it's not an accurate description of the flag, it's just the coat of arms of the 3 republics together. The one that is here has also being used in the previous Wikis, and I believe that it's fair enought to display in this article. Messhermit 13:11, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Page is unprotected

Please sort out differences here, of if you can't, request help. It would be a shame to have to protect again. Rich Farmbrough 00:44 10 March 2006 (UTC).

The whole issue is farily simple: Some IP editor is claiming that Atacama was part of Chile since its independence. This is not only false but only a PoV pushing:

• Atacama was part of Chile after the defeat of Bolivian forces in the War of The Pacific, no questions about that. But Atacama being chilean before that period of time is simply false. Messhermit 03:58, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Dates of Confederation

I am somewhat confused by the dates of confederation presented in this article. The information box has establishment and disestablishment dates of 9 May 1837 and 25 Aug 1839, respectively. However, the article itself states that the confederation proclaimed on 28 Oct 1836. To makes things more unclear, WorldStatesmen.org (http://www.worldstatesmen.org/Bolivia.html) states that the dates of confederation were 28 Oct 1836 to 20 Feb 1839. The Encyclopedia of World History states that the confederation lasted from 1835-1839, and that the confederation's defeat by Chile on 20 Jan 1839 brought the confederation to an end. How is it that so many sources can come up with so many different dates? --Mike Beidler 04:14, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Territorial (Map) Issues

http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archivo:PERU_MAPA_1865.JPG

Peru's eastern border with Brazil is not the one defined in the current map. According to the 1865 map provided above and on the territorial history of Peru [7], the border was further east; almost to the point of making the northern "tail-looking" part of Peru more of a flat wall (effectively making the "tail" much shorter). Check the Chincha Islands War map.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 06:45, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Sentence Fragment

"Nonetheless Simón Bolívar, who had liberated the territory and destroyed the last remnants of the Spanish army."

What did he do? Nonetheless what?

2601:600:A37F:F111:35F6:FAB7:12A3:32DC (talk) 18:42, 9 September 2020 (UTC)