Any explanation about the USS Baltimore Crisis needs to briefly explore what caused it to give the reader, who probably isn't familiar with a topic, with some contextualization.

The story begins with two American sailors from the USS Baltimore on shore leave. The USS Baltimore had been in Chilean waters since early 1891 to watch over the lives of North Americans living in Chile while the Chilean Civil War was raging all around them. Even when the Chilean Civil War had ended, the sailors on the USS Baltimore had not been granted shore leave. On October 16, 1891, the USS Baltimore was in the harbor of Valparaiso, the largest port city in Chile. 117 sailors from the USS Baltimore were granted a 24 hour shore leave and unsurprisingly got up to no good. A fight outside the True Blue Saloon left two sailors, Charles Riggin and William Turnbull, dead while several other sailors were injured. Why did a simple and not so surprising bar fight lead to a crisis between two sovereign nations that almost erupted into a war between Chile and the United States?

The United States had been formally neutral in the Chilean Civil War that had ended only months before the True Blue Saloon incident. Despite this, it had been clear to the ultimate victors of the war (and who were in control of the Chilean government during the crisis) that the United States had actively supported the opposite side during the civil war. A reason for this was that the rebels, the Congressionalists as they were called during the civil war, were perceived as being more inclined towards European powers (and therefore European trade) as opposed to American policy under President Benjamin Harrison who focused on Pan-American policies. Additionally, the United States ambassador to Chile, Patrick Egan, actively supported the Chilean government during the civil war. Therefore, there were strong pre-existing tensions between the United States and the post-civil war Chilean government before the crisis.

Immediately after the True Blue Saloon incident, things didn't seem like they were going to war. The United States first accepted the fact that the incident would fairly be investigated by Chilean authorities. The judicial investigation began to take too long, however, in the eyes of the Americans and legal transgressions by Chile frustrated the US government. At the same time, Captain Winfield Scott Schley, commander of the USS Baltimore, carried out his own investigation that reached the conclusion that it had not been a random fight. It had been premeditated and Chile was to be blamed. These conclusions were then sent to Assistant Secretary of State William Wharton who not only accepted the conclusions but also circulated them in the government. Ultimately, Schley's conclusion became President Harrison's conclusions: The Chilean judicial investigation was a failure. The Chilean perpetrators (and in extension, the Chilean nation) were guilty and should be punished for their crime. If not, the United States would take action. From President Harrison's annual message to Congress (December 9, 1891):

"This Government is now awaiting the result of an investigation which has been conducted by the criminal court at Valparaiso. It is reported unofficially that the investigation is about completed, and it is expected that the result will soon be communicated to this Government, together with some adequate and satisfactory response to the note by which the attention of Chile was called to this incident. If these just expectations should be disappointed or further needless delay intervene, I will, by a special message, bring this matter again to the attention of Congress for such action as may be necessary."

This severe response might also have an answer in the fact that 1892 was an election year, as some American historians has argued. President Harrison's jingoism was explained as closely related to the upcoming election while other historians has argued that the United States jingoism is instead tied into other, contemporary aspirations of the United States (see below). An additional internal factor in the United States is also worth mentioning: Yellow journalism. The sensational press that would contribute to the United States entry into the Spanish-American war only years later had a field day in shaping the opinions and patriotism of the American public against the perceived anti-American Chileans. Readers in the United States would have encountered headlines about impending war with Chile and stories of Chilean preparations for war. Strangely enough, the Chilean navy was painted out as being very powerful and a threat against the United States navy. The reality of the matter is that Chile was far from being prepared to wage war against a foe like the United States, especially since it had just come out from a civil war that saw naval battles between the existing Chilean navy.

Matters would get worse during January 1892. The results of the Chilean judicial investigation did predictably not please President Harrison since it revealed that the incident had not been planned and had just been a drunken fight outside of a bar frequented by sailors looking to drink. Additionally, an American sailor was given a prison sentence for his involvement in the incident. If this wasn't bad enough for President Harrison, the Chilean government also took the step to request the removal of Patrick Egan, the American ambassador who had supported the losing side in the civil war. Secretary of State James Blaine sent a strongly worded telegram demanding an apology for the True Blue Saloon incident. If this demand would not be met by the Chilean government, the United States would sever diplomatic relations with Chile. National pride was at stake. This demand was repeated by President Harrison in a special message to Congress:

"On the 21st instant I caused to be communicated to the Government of Chile by the American minister at Santiago the conclusions of this Government after a full consideration of all the evidence and of every suggestion affecting this matter, and to these conclusions I adhere. They were stated as follows:

First. That the assault is not relieved of the aspect which the early information of the event gave to it, viz, that of an attack upon the uniform of the United States Navy having its origin and motive in a feeling of hostility to this Government, and not in any act of the sailors or of any of them.

Second. That the public authorities of Valparaiso flagrantly failed in their duty to protect our men, and that some of the police and of the Chilean soldiers and sailors were themselves guilty of unprovoked assaults upon our sailors before and after arrest. He (the President) thinks the preponderance of the evidence and the inherent probabilities lead to the conclusion that Riggin was killed by the police or soldiers.

Third. That he (the President) is therefore compelled to bring the case back to the position taken by this Government in the note of Mr. Wharton of October 23 last * * * and to ask for a suitable apology and for some adequate reparation for the injury done to this Government."

The United States was close to declaring war on Chile. What solved the crisis was the new Chilean minister of foreign affairs, Luis Pereira. Pereira saw that President Harrison was truly pushing the two countries towards a war. Acting swiftly, Periera acquiesced to the demands as the only way to avoid a destructive war. Chile apologized, despite being arguably in the right, and ultimately paid reparations at an estimation of $75,000. The Baltimore Crisis was over and war had been averted.

This narrative of crisis and how it unfolded needs additional context. Unlike the contemporary United States or the United States of the mid-20th century, there was no wide acceptance of the United States as a world power. The United States of 1891 was on the path that would one day lead to the Spanish-American War and its ascent to the status of a world power. One of the steps on the way there was the USS Baltimore Crisis. Although the United States was recognized by Chile as being a larger, perhaps more powerful nation, both nations were still desiring the same goal. In the words of historian Joyce S. Goldberg who has written an in-depth examination of the American perspective of the crisis: "the United States and Chile both were struggling to develop dominant positions in the western hemisphere in the latter part of the nineteenth century. Their understanding of themselves, the manner in which the rest of the world saw them, their desire to alter or maintain images all connected to details of a tumult involving sailors and civilians in a rowdy neighborhood of Chile's second largest city."

Therefore, the factors creating the crisis went beyond a simple fight outside of a bar. It involved larger questions surrounding the status of the United States, European commerce in Latin America and internal politics in the United States. Furthermore, it also gives us a glimpse of how Chile as a nation wanted to be seen as; a nation reborn out of a destructive civil war, fueled by resources gained its war conquests between 1879-1881, and desiring a place and status equal to that of the United States in the eyes of the world.