Plausibilty Check: American invasion of Cuba during the 1st Carlist War
- Thread starter Timmy811
- Start date
TFSmith121
Banned
In terms of shipping and naval strength?
Yes; the U.S. merchant marine was second in the world for much of the first half of the Nineteenth Century, and given any sort of lead time to mobilize, the USN certainly had the ships of the line, frigates, sloops, and small craft to cover an invasion.
The U.S. expeditionary force would be largely volunteer, but the professional cadre, officers with experience in 1812-15 and afterward, was certainly there. The Mexican War was a decade later, but it certainly shows the possibilities.
The problem for the U.S. is the reception such a force would find in Cuba, which was loyal to Spain during the collapse of the Empire; these dates also predate any really strong independence movement in Cuba.
Also would depend a lot on the causes belli; helping a revolution is one thing - intervening to secure additional slave territory is another.
Best,
Yes; the U.S. merchant marine was second in the world for much of the first half of the Nineteenth Century, and given any sort of lead time to mobilize, the USN certainly had the ships of the line, frigates, sloops, and small craft to cover an invasion.
The U.S. expeditionary force would be largely volunteer, but the professional cadre, officers with experience in 1812-15 and afterward, was certainly there. The Mexican War was a decade later, but it certainly shows the possibilities.
The problem for the U.S. is the reception such a force would find in Cuba, which was loyal to Spain during the collapse of the Empire; these dates also predate any really strong independence movement in Cuba.
Also would depend a lot on the causes belli; helping a revolution is one thing - intervening to secure additional slave territory is another.
Best,
CthulhuFhtagn
Banned
I doubt it. The US military was kind of non-existent before 1848. It's a miracle that we managed to defeat a second-rate power like Mexico, let alone a major European power. The 1830s are just too early for the US to launch this kind of operation. At best, the US government could aid Cuban rebels and get crushed by the Spanish for its trouble.
TFSmith121
Banned
The U.S. raised a 40,000 man force for
The U.S. raised a 40,000 man force for the Second Seminole War, including 10,000 regulars, in the same decade, so if the political will is present, given a population of 12.8 million in the 1830 census, an expeditionary force can be raised, and with a professional cadre.
McComb was named general in chief in the 1820s, and Thayer reorganized the USMA in the same period; Scott, Taylor, Gaines, and Jesup were all active as general officers in this period.
The USN had deployed overseas at squadron strength since the Barbary wars, so controlling the sea around Cuba certainly does not seem impossible in the 1830s.
Really comes down to how distracted the Spanish are and how disaffected the Cubans can become from Spain.
It is worth noting that spain had used Cuba as a base for attacks on the now independent states as late as IIRC as 1829 (Mexico) so a liberation war might actually find some allies.
It is not far fetched, actually.
Best,
The U.S. raised a 40,000 man force for the Second Seminole War, including 10,000 regulars, in the same decade, so if the political will is present, given a population of 12.8 million in the 1830 census, an expeditionary force can be raised, and with a professional cadre.
McComb was named general in chief in the 1820s, and Thayer reorganized the USMA in the same period; Scott, Taylor, Gaines, and Jesup were all active as general officers in this period.
The USN had deployed overseas at squadron strength since the Barbary wars, so controlling the sea around Cuba certainly does not seem impossible in the 1830s.
Really comes down to how distracted the Spanish are and how disaffected the Cubans can become from Spain.
It is worth noting that spain had used Cuba as a base for attacks on the now independent states as late as IIRC as 1829 (Mexico) so a liberation war might actually find some allies.
It is not far fetched, actually.
Best,
How much can the government divert to Cuba if they're busy fighting rebels in Spain?
TFSmith121
Banned
Here's the appropriate chapter from
Chatper 7 of Vol. I in THE UNITED STATES ARMY AND THE FORGING OF A NATION, 1775-1917:
http://www.history.army.mil/books/AMH-V1/ch07.htm
There's a lengthy bibliography. If you consider the size of the forces the U.S. raised for the Second Seminole War, and that this would only predate Mexico by about a decade, but that the logistical issues are actually simpler (shorter distances, and Cuba is an island, obviously), it's quite possible.
Biggest issues are:
a) political support within the US and Congress;
b) the Spanish situation;
c) the Cuban situation;
d) support for a war from elsewhere in the Americas .
Best,
Chatper 7 of Vol. I in THE UNITED STATES ARMY AND THE FORGING OF A NATION, 1775-1917:
http://www.history.army.mil/books/AMH-V1/ch07.htm
There's a lengthy bibliography. If you consider the size of the forces the U.S. raised for the Second Seminole War, and that this would only predate Mexico by about a decade, but that the logistical issues are actually simpler (shorter distances, and Cuba is an island, obviously), it's quite possible.
Biggest issues are:
a) political support within the US and Congress;
b) the Spanish situation;
c) the Cuban situation;
d) support for a war from elsewhere in the Americas .
Best,
Grey Wolf
Donor
I think they could have invaded it, but after that it would be very much in the balance and dependant on whether Congress wants to finance a serious global war. The USN is very much a reserve navy - it can be activated, and ships on pause or in furlough can be brought up to active service. The skill is there, the leadership probably, but it all costs money. There is probably enough of a window to effect a landing and to support it sufficiently to establish it - but here again we are suddenly aware that there are time-limited state militias masquerading as an army, probably supplemented by some small volunteer forces (one does not think Cuba would be so attractive for this). They would be pitched into a war with forces that don't agree but do know they don't want to be annexed by the USA. Spain similarly would be able to send a naval squadron to whatever Caribbean base remains to them - Puerto Rico, or Santiago de Cuba. IMHO this would be a war as traumatic as the Mexico war, but one where striking a killing blow is almost impossible and where they are going to have to hope events in Spain, and will in Madrid, leads to a capitulation
Best Regards
Grey Wolf
Best Regards
Grey Wolf
TFSmith121
Banned
Presumably, driving the last European power that was
Presumably, driving the last European power that was still contesting the independence of its former colonies out of the hemisphere; the Spanish had attacked Mexico from Cuba as recently as July, 1829.
A Spanish squadron, carrying some 3,000 troops under Isidro Barradas landed 60 miles from Tampico; Barradas marched, while the ships returned to Cuba for reinforcements. The Spanish were met at Tampico by some 4,000 Mexican troops under (here's a name) Gen. Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna, who attacked Sept. 10. The Spanish surrendered Sept. 11; they had suffered more than 900 casualties (including to disease) and only 1,800 returned to Cuba. Mexican casualties were about 300 dead and wounded; unknown to disease.
The Mexicans planned to infiltrate raiding forces into Cuba in retaliation, but there was a coup in December and that fell by the wayside.
Given the fairly recent Spanish threat, and the - generally - good relations between the US and the Latin American republics at this point (A Porter was a commodore in the Mexican Navy during the Spanish war, for example), so there is the possibility of a "Pan-American" war against Spain, which would have some interesting ripples...
Jackson as president, Lewis Cass (presumably) as Secretary of War, Levi Woodbury (presumably) as Secretary of the Navy, Livingston or McLane as secretary of state and treasury ... given the upheaval of the Petticoat Affair, Jackson's second cabinet was actually pretty impressive.
As far as US naval strength goes, personnel strength varied from 5,000 to 8,000 officers and men in 1833-39; at the height of the 1846-48 war, personnel numbers were 11,000, so it's not a huge stretch - and those 11,000 manned the squadrons that covered both Scott's landing and blockaded the Mexican Pacific Coast, so for the purposes of getting an expeditionary force from (presumably) Pensacola to Havana, it's a reasonably-sized force.
Success, presumably, is a free Republic of Cuba - Puerto Rico is an interesting question; federating the two is tough with Hispaniola (Haiti and DR) in the middle, but PR is pretty small for a republic, even today.
Politically, independence sidesteps the "slave or free state" issue pretty neatly; the question is whether there would be enough Cuban support for a rebellion as early as the 1830s.
But if the Spanish are in the middle of what amounts to a civil war of their own, and the US can avoid any internal conflict over admission of Cuba and/or Puerto Rico, it is certainly possible in terms of the correlation of forces in the Western Hemisphere.
Best,
Presumably, driving the last European power that was still contesting the independence of its former colonies out of the hemisphere; the Spanish had attacked Mexico from Cuba as recently as July, 1829.
A Spanish squadron, carrying some 3,000 troops under Isidro Barradas landed 60 miles from Tampico; Barradas marched, while the ships returned to Cuba for reinforcements. The Spanish were met at Tampico by some 4,000 Mexican troops under (here's a name) Gen. Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna, who attacked Sept. 10. The Spanish surrendered Sept. 11; they had suffered more than 900 casualties (including to disease) and only 1,800 returned to Cuba. Mexican casualties were about 300 dead and wounded; unknown to disease.
The Mexicans planned to infiltrate raiding forces into Cuba in retaliation, but there was a coup in December and that fell by the wayside.
Given the fairly recent Spanish threat, and the - generally - good relations between the US and the Latin American republics at this point (A Porter was a commodore in the Mexican Navy during the Spanish war, for example), so there is the possibility of a "Pan-American" war against Spain, which would have some interesting ripples...
Jackson as president, Lewis Cass (presumably) as Secretary of War, Levi Woodbury (presumably) as Secretary of the Navy, Livingston or McLane as secretary of state and treasury ... given the upheaval of the Petticoat Affair, Jackson's second cabinet was actually pretty impressive.
As far as US naval strength goes, personnel strength varied from 5,000 to 8,000 officers and men in 1833-39; at the height of the 1846-48 war, personnel numbers were 11,000, so it's not a huge stretch - and those 11,000 manned the squadrons that covered both Scott's landing and blockaded the Mexican Pacific Coast, so for the purposes of getting an expeditionary force from (presumably) Pensacola to Havana, it's a reasonably-sized force.
Success, presumably, is a free Republic of Cuba - Puerto Rico is an interesting question; federating the two is tough with Hispaniola (Haiti and DR) in the middle, but PR is pretty small for a republic, even today.
Politically, independence sidesteps the "slave or free state" issue pretty neatly; the question is whether there would be enough Cuban support for a rebellion as early as the 1830s.
But if the Spanish are in the middle of what amounts to a civil war of their own, and the US can avoid any internal conflict over admission of Cuba and/or Puerto Rico, it is certainly possible in terms of the correlation of forces in the Western Hemisphere.
Best,
TFSmith121
Banned
That seems fair - the point of departure would have to
That seems fair - the point of departure would have to be a Cuban revolutionary effort of some note, and the 1830s seems early for that...
The point of departure might be the proposed Mexican expeditions, which revolved around Jose Ignacio Basadre recruiting men of African ancestry (including Haitians, with the support of Jean-Pierre Boyer) and inciting a slave revolt.
If that goes forward, and the Cuban criollos rise in a bid to keep control, that might be enough to get Jackson et al interested - as long as the Spanish are still in the middle of their Carlist Civil War, of course.
The British might be encouraging, or at least turn a blind eye, as well; Cuba and Puerto Rico in turmoil means better markets for sugar and rum from the British West Indies, after all.
Best,
That seems fair - the point of departure would have to be a Cuban revolutionary effort of some note, and the 1830s seems early for that...
The point of departure might be the proposed Mexican expeditions, which revolved around Jose Ignacio Basadre recruiting men of African ancestry (including Haitians, with the support of Jean-Pierre Boyer) and inciting a slave revolt.
If that goes forward, and the Cuban criollos rise in a bid to keep control, that might be enough to get Jackson et al interested - as long as the Spanish are still in the middle of their Carlist Civil War, of course.
The British might be encouraging, or at least turn a blind eye, as well; Cuba and Puerto Rico in turmoil means better markets for sugar and rum from the British West Indies, after all.
Best,
I can't see the Congress at this point in time supporting such a venture unless annexation is on the table.
Would it be in the economic interests of the Cuban elites to go along with this? If they want to stop it they have to go all in immediately and back the governor to the hilt. The US is just over a hundred miles away, it's population has tripled since 1790 and its territory has doubled. A lot different then being a colony for a declining power more than 4,500 miles away. Waiting will just make the American grip on the island stronger.
Probably would be economically beneficial for the island to be tied into the greater US economy and the local elites would gain significant political power under the republican form of government afforded U.S. states, and they'd have relative autonomy given the weakness of the federal government at this time. However, the poor whites would be enfranchised in such a circumstance, which many elites may not look to fondly on.
Last edited:
TFSmith121
Banned
Possibly; except, remember, this is an era where the Monroe Doctrine is
Possibly; except, remember, this is an era where the Monroe Doctrine is government policy and manifest destiny, even as a slogan, has yet to be coined.
The Compromise of 1820 is - more or less - accepted across the spectrum in terms of balancing slave and free states; although one could certainly see Cuba and/or Puerto Rico entering as slave states, it is difficult to see the free states to balance - Maine was admitted in 1820, and Michigan didn't get statehood until 1837, and then it is a long wait for Iowa (1846).
The other issue, of course, is the fact that Cuba and Puerto Rico would be almost entirely Catholic states; even in the Second Party System, this is not going to be a simple issue to deal with...
I actually can see the Congress - IF (and it's a big IF) there is a useable Cuban revolutionary organization - supporting a "liberation" type conflict from a "republican" perspective.
Most notably, it sidesteps both the slave power and Catholic issues, and yet the economic advantages of opening both islands to US trade would, presumably, "follow the flag."
And its not like Jackson had any reservations about fighting the Spanish.
Best,
Possibly; except, remember, this is an era where the Monroe Doctrine is government policy and manifest destiny, even as a slogan, has yet to be coined.
The Compromise of 1820 is - more or less - accepted across the spectrum in terms of balancing slave and free states; although one could certainly see Cuba and/or Puerto Rico entering as slave states, it is difficult to see the free states to balance - Maine was admitted in 1820, and Michigan didn't get statehood until 1837, and then it is a long wait for Iowa (1846).
The other issue, of course, is the fact that Cuba and Puerto Rico would be almost entirely Catholic states; even in the Second Party System, this is not going to be a simple issue to deal with...
I actually can see the Congress - IF (and it's a big IF) there is a useable Cuban revolutionary organization - supporting a "liberation" type conflict from a "republican" perspective.
Most notably, it sidesteps both the slave power and Catholic issues, and yet the economic advantages of opening both islands to US trade would, presumably, "follow the flag."
And its not like Jackson had any reservations about fighting the Spanish.
Best,
The people worried about balancing the senate were almost exclusively in the South and those who wanted to placate her. Two slave states (Cuba and Arkansas) being admitted around the same time as one free state (Michigan) won't be too concerning to the North I think. After all, even if they won't be admitted for another decade or two, the North has a clear advantage in incoming states.
The south is acting at this time as a strictly conservative force, and has not yet adopted its more aggressive doctrines of federal slave power (fugitive slave act, spreading slavery to the territories, Dred Scott, etc). This would be the first really aggressive move in this timeline (they haven't even passed the gag rule in the House yet).
Assuming similar entrance dates in this timeline, the Free State/Slave State balance won't swing in the advantage to the North until 1858 instead of 1850. That may put off some of the tension for a little bit, but it'll swing hard in the North's favor with Oregon and Kansas coming in 1859 and '61. That might be even more upsetting to the South coming all at once.
Of course, if Cuba is successfully annexed, maybe the U.S will take more of Mexico.
The south is acting at this time as a strictly conservative force, and has not yet adopted its more aggressive doctrines of federal slave power (fugitive slave act, spreading slavery to the territories, Dred Scott, etc). This would be the first really aggressive move in this timeline (they haven't even passed the gag rule in the House yet).
Assuming similar entrance dates in this timeline, the Free State/Slave State balance won't swing in the advantage to the North until 1858 instead of 1850. That may put off some of the tension for a little bit, but it'll swing hard in the North's favor with Oregon and Kansas coming in 1859 and '61. That might be even more upsetting to the South coming all at once.
Of course, if Cuba is successfully annexed, maybe the U.S will take more of Mexico.