AHC & WI: USA gets Cuba before the ACW

Rush Tarquin

One of the most well-known AH cliches around these parts is Confederate Cuba. It's been discussed a few times how a Confederate-Spanish War over Cuba might turn out.

What I want to discuss is an American Cuba prior to the ACW. I think the problem with using the Ostend Manifesto as a POD is that apparently everybody involved was an idiot. So what is a credible way for the US to gain Cuba prior to the ACW?

Then comes the mess of what to do with it. Would it be a territory or a state or something else? How long would it take to gain such a status: months, years, decades...? Would it be slave or free? What happens to the island's demographics, politics, economy, and culture? How does it affect these things in the rest of the country? Does it cause an early ACW, postpone it, or prevent it? What happens to Cuba when the ACW breaks out, during the war, and after it?
 

Nofix

I remember reading somewhere that Andrew Jackson planned on taking Cuba after he got Florida, but got sick and couldn't go.
 

Dirk_Pitt

Banned
Nofix said:
I remember reading somewhere that Andrew Jackson planned on taking Cuba after he got Florida, but got sick and couldn't go.
Click to expand...

Nah, he "hinted" to the president that if he were given a frigate he could add Cuba as well. The controversy over Florida made this unlikely.
 
The Kiat

The Kiat

Have slavery die a slow death (no cotton gin or something). Without the fear of expanding slavery, there would be a lot of land further south now part of the United States.
 
MadMc

MadMc

I think Jackson's takeover of Florida will be the best lead-off to it. Maybe actually have the Spanish declare war and fight for Florida, Jackson may get his frigate for Cuba
 

Blackfox5

Because Cuba would obviously become one or more slave states, the only way the country could agree to getting it would be over some kind of grand compromise that would satisfy both northern and southern opinion.


The Kansas-Nebraska Act was so devastating to political stability, that at the very least that needs to not happen. It will probably require earlier POD so that the Compromise of 1850 is changed as well.


I think an ideal compromise would be along the lines that slavery could only expand in areas where it was already legal prior to American annexation. Thus all the Mexican cession would be inadmissible to slavery, but it would leave open the possibility of expansion into Cuba and other Spanish possessions in the Caribbean.


While it would lead to expansion of American slave territory, it would not lead to an expansion of slavery. It would also prevent the possibility of further American expansion south to always lead to more slavery. If advocated early enough, a northern population not enraged by Bleeding Kansas and the Fugitive Slave Law, might accept it.


I don't know if such a compromise is possible with the actual personalities involved, and I am pretty sure it was never advocated. But it seems to me a potential solution that could work, even if it is not a realistic POD.


Of course, the US would still have to invade and conquer Cuba which presents its own logistical challenges. However, eliminating the debacle of the Kansas-Nebraska Act might prevent the formation of the Republican Party, keep the Whigs intact, and keep the Union together for another decade or so before a Civil War might break out.
 

Dathi THorfinnsson

Blackfox5 said:
Of course, the US would still have to invade and conquer Cuba which presents its own logistical challenges.
Click to expand...

To say the least. The Spanish navy wasn't as run-down then as it was in 1898, and the US navy wasn't nearly as big. I think if the US tried it, they'd get a huge bloody nose.

Also, the Cuban rebels fighting Spain at the time were fighting against slavery. The only possible way the US could win would be if they announced that slavery would be abolished there - and that would kill an possible support in Congress. Especially given that this would be a naked war of aggression, very bloody and very, very expensive.
 

mrmandias

I agree with all this. Mainstream free-soil position in the north was reconciled to the existence of slavery but was strongly opposed to its spread. It would object to new slave states in areas where slavery already existed only when it became convinced of an aggressive "slave power" that wanted more votes in the Senate and the House to muscle the North into accepting the spread of slavery where it did not already exist.

The kind of agreement you lay out could probably happen OTL as late as the ATL equivalent of the Compromise of 1850.

Blackfox5 said:
Because Cuba would obviously become one or more slave states, the only way the country could agree to getting it would be over some kind of grand compromise that would satisfy both northern and southern opinion.


The Kansas-Nebraska Act was so devastating to political stability, that at the very least that needs to not happen. It will probably require earlier POD so that the Compromise of 1850 is changed as well.


I think an ideal compromise would be along the lines that slavery could only expand in areas where it was already legal prior to American annexation. Thus all the Mexican cession would be inadmissible to slavery, but it would leave open the possibility of expansion into Cuba and other Spanish possessions in the Caribbean.


While it would lead to expansion of American slave territory, it would not lead to an expansion of slavery. It would also prevent the possibility of further American expansion south to always lead to more slavery. If advocated early enough, a northern population not enraged by Bleeding Kansas and the Fugitive Slave Law, might accept it.


I don't know if such a compromise is possible with the actual personalities involved, and I am pretty sure it was never advocated. But it seems to me a potential solution that could work, even if it is not a realistic POD.


Of course, the US would still have to invade and conquer Cuba which presents its own logistical challenges. However, eliminating the debacle of the Kansas-Nebraska Act might prevent the formation of the Republican Party, keep the Whigs intact, and keep the Union together for another decade or so before a Civil War might break out.
Click to expand...
 

asupackman

Something I'd like to throw out there: If the US does get Cuba prior to the ACW and it becomes a state by 1860 and votes to join the CSA(yes I know there will be butterflies but just play along), how does that impact the northern war plan? Does Cuba even vote to join the CSA or does it go it's own way? Does having Cuba aid Confederate smuggling efforts? Does the north just blockade Cuba and wait it out? Is there any chance Cuba would regain it's independance after the war because the Union doesnt have it in them to conquer and put down cuba in what would probably be less than 50 years?
 

Blackfox5

asupackman said:
Something I'd like to throw out there: If the US does get Cuba prior to the ACW and it becomes a state by 1860 and votes to join the CSA(yes I know there will be butterflies but just play along), how does that impact the northern war plan? Does Cuba even vote to join the CSA or does it go it's own way? Does having Cuba aid Confederate smuggling efforts? Does the north just blockade Cuba and wait it out? Is there any chance Cuba would regain it's independance after the war because the Union doesnt have it in them to conquer and put down cuba in what would probably be less than 50 years?
Click to expand...

As you say, this scenario probably wouldn't happen in 1861 given the PODs needed, but to play along:
  • Union blockade extends to Cuba.
  • All Cuban manpower and material never gets used by the Confederacy, so there is no benefit to the CSA.
  • Cuba is not essential to winning the war, so besides the blockade, Union war strategy does not involve it. There may be one or two landings to seize ports like the US did on the mainland, but that'll be it.
  • Cuba will rejoin the states after the war. By April 1865 with the Confederacy in collapse, Texan Confederates accepted defeat because they knew what was going to happen if they continued to resist. Cuban Confederates will have the same options and do the same.
The only major departure I see is that blacks in Cuba might not become disenfranchised as easily after Reconstruction as they were in the mainland South. Cuban blacks may retain significant civil rights that were lost in the South, and the Republican Party might remain a significant political party there.
 

mrmandias

Blackfox5 said:
As you say, this scenario probably wouldn't happen in 1861 given the PODs needed, but to play along:
  • Union blockade extends to Cuba.
  • All Cuban manpower and material never gets used by the Confederacy, so there is no benefit to the CSA.
  • Cuba is not essential to winning the war, so besides the blockade, Union war strategy does not involve it. There may be one or two landings to seize ports like the US did on the mainland, but that'll be it.
  • Cuba will rejoin the states after the war. By April 1865 with the Confederacy in collapse, Texan Confederates accepted defeat because they knew what was going to happen if they continued to resist. Cuban Confederates will have the same options and do the same.
The only major departure I see is that blacks in Cuba might not become disenfranchised as easily after Reconstruction as they were in the mainland South. Cuban blacks may retain significant civil rights that were lost in the South, and the Republican Party might remain a significant political party there.
Click to expand...

That being so, the trajectory of Reconstruction in the South may not go the same either. If blacks retain civil rights and are potentially getting elected to federal office in one state, it makes the OTL end to Reconstruction in the rest of the South less likely.
 

asupackman

mrmandias said:
That being so, the trajectory of Reconstruction in the South may not go the same either. If blacks retain civil rights and are potentially getting elected to federal office in one state, it makes the OTL end to Reconstruction in the rest of the South less likely.
Click to expand...


So according to blackfox's example basically Cuba would basically sit out the war other than possible rationing because of the blockaid and some coastal harasment? That doesnt sound like too bad of a deal. Though I'm sure there would be a military reconstruction government at first most if not about all of their infrastructure would come through the war unscathed.
 

Blackfox5

mrmandias said:
That being so, the trajectory of Reconstruction in the South may not go the same either. If blacks retain civil rights and are potentially getting elected to federal office in one state, it makes the OTL end to Reconstruction in the rest of the South less likely.
Click to expand...

That I don't agree with. There were black Congressmen in the north eventually during the Jim Crow era, and it didn't change black disenfranchisement in the south. One or more black Congressmen from Cuba isn't going to help blacks dealing with the state government segregation and harassment in the other parts of the Confederacy.

Situations like the 1876 election may end up changed, but overall the north was weary of ongoing racial issues in the south and public opinion had turned from being sympathetic to the plight of southern blacks to wanting reconciliation with southern whites.

Of course, what we are really dealing with in this scenario is not OTL with Cuba added to it, but major changes in the timing of any civil war and how it would happen. This can't be accurately predicted. It depends on how the TL develops in the author's imagination.

The major reason I believe Cuba may turn out differently from the other Confederate states is that most of the population will still be Cuban with plenty of mestizos and mulattoes and pure blooded Spaniards rather than non-Spanish whites who moved from the mainland. That will prevent the strict racial categorization and disenfranchisement that happened in the South.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top