After Congress moved against him, Balmaceda had also lost support among Chile's aristocratic class, major landowners, and the Church. His favouritism contributed to the first two fractures, while his secular programme drove the third, so the opposition extended beyond the immediate budget dispute. A Times correspondent alleged in May 1891 that English or Anglo-Chilean owners of Tarapacá nitrate deposits were instigators and financial supporters of the revolution. This was a contemporary allegation rather than a settled explanation, an important caveat when separating foreign economic interest from proven intervention.
Notable Point · 2:25:20-2:26:45
Balmaceda's opponents and the nitrate-interest allegation
Balmaceda had alienated legislators, landowners, and the Church, while a contemporary correspondent alleged that Anglo-Chilean nitrate owners helped drive the revolt.