President Pierce invades/annexes Cuba, delays Kansas-Nebraska


In both the Civil War and later in the Spanish American War the U.S. (And Confederacy) demonstrated they could rapidly organize and deploy armies in the hundreds of thousands. Spain also has to deal with the fact it's across an ocean while the U.S. is 90 miles from Cuba at Key West in addition to some local support.
 
In both the Civil War and later in the Spanish American War the U.S. (And Confederacy) demonstrated they could rapidly organize and deploy armies in the hundreds of thousands. Spain also has to deal with the fact it's across an ocean while the U.S. is 90 miles from Cuba at Key West in addition to some local support.
The political will to raise those armies won't exist for a land grab in Cuba. It's not difficult to imagine a scenario where naval setbacks and a force getting ravaged by diseases forces the US to give up its ambitions, especially with dissension to the war in Congress.
 
The political will to raise those armies won't exist for a land grab in Cuba. It's not difficult to imagine a scenario where naval setbacks and a force getting ravaged by diseases forces the US to give up its ambitions, especially with dissension to the war in Congress.

The political will was there and Congress was pretty much in unity on the matter in the aftermath of the Black Warrior Affair.
 
The political will was there and Congress was pretty much in unity on the matter in the aftermath of the Black Warrior Affair.

The Democrats were, but the Whigs were not. And neither would the country be fully unified around the idea either. America certainly wasn't in 1846 at the beginning of the Mexican war. It should be noted that not even Pierce's cabinet would be united around the idea: Secretary of State William Marcy opposed military intervention.

And even if the United States defeated Spain (which isn't by any means guaranteed due to the inferiority of America's Navy and army in this period) what's to stop the conquest of Cuba from devolving into a guerilla war that carries on for years and becomes unpopular? The Cubans will be switching control from one foreign power to another. When this happened in the Phillipines in 1899, the result was a brutal war that carried on for years...
 
The political will was there and Congress was pretty much in unity on the matter in the aftermath of the Black Warrior Affair.

Would that unity last though if the US campaign started facing serious setbacks? It's easy to scream Jingo at the start of a war (When people usually assume they'll win and it will be quick) or when momentium is on your side, but as the taxes go up to pay to build the fleet needed to contest Spain, the pool of eager volunteers starts to trickle out as their enlistment terms finish up, the body count starts rising from the various tropical diseses, and there isn't a steady diet of notable accomplishments to feed the papers will that continue? This isent 1814 or 1864, where the Republic itself was threatened, or the cakewalk into a crumbling nation that was the Mexican American War either.
 
The Democrats were, but the Whigs were not. And neither would the country be fully unified around the idea either. America certainly wasn't in 1846 at the beginning of the Mexican war. It should be noted that not even Pierce's cabinet would be united around the idea: Secretary of State William Marcy opposed military intervention.

The Whigs were actually in favor of the acquisition of Cuba, or at least divided on the issue while the Democrats were not.

The policy of Fillmore, Webster and Everett was blamed in Congress and in the newspapers. It was condemned by power- ful organs of Whig opinion in New York, which regretted that Fillmore did not bring his administration to a brilliant close by the acquisition of "the pearl of the Antilles," and so prevent the incoming Democratic administration from accomplishing the beneficent result

Mr. Marcy, the Cuban Question and the Ostend Manifesto by Sidney Webster, Political Science Quarterly, Vol. 8, No. 1 (Mar., 1893), pp. 1-32

As for Marcy:
"To tell you an unwelcome truth, the Nebraska question has sadly shattered our party in all the free states and deprived it of that strength which was needed and could have been much more profitably used for the acquisition of Cuba." Quoted in Spencer, *The Victor and the Spoils*, p. 324

And even if the United States defeated Spain (which isn't by any means guaranteed due to the inferiority of America's Navy and army in this period) what's to stop the conquest of Cuba from devolving into a guerilla war that carries on for years and becomes unpopular? The Cubans will be switching control from one foreign power to another. When this happened in the Phillipines in 1899, the result was a brutal war that carried on for years...

Would that unity last though if the US campaign started facing serious setbacks? It's easy to scream Jingo at the start of a war (When people usually assume they'll win and it will be quick) or when momentium is on your side, but as the taxes go up to pay to build the fleet needed to contest Spain, the pool of eager volunteers starts to trickle out as their enlistment terms finish up, the body count starts rising from the various tropical diseses, and there isn't a steady diet of notable accomplishments to feed the papers will that continue? This isent 1814 or 1864, where the Republic itself was threatened, or the cakewalk into a crumbling nation that was the Mexican American War either.

Spain's garrison on the isles was 25,000 and the U.S. has much closer logistics; the Civil War showed the U.S. could raise and equip several hundred thousand troops and develop an effective naval force on a quick basis. Given the U.S. during the Mexican War and Civil War showed the ability to raise large armies to fight with and, in both conflicts as well as the Indian Wars, displayed the ability to fight irregulars on an extremely effective basis, I just don't see that avenue working. There is also the matter of who would fight such a conflict; the Spanish colonists are weak on the ground and many are likely amendable to American rule given the current status of the South and Cuban slavery. The other possible faction is the Slaves fighting such a conflict, but I don't see that as likely given how it came about IOTL versus the changed conditions.
 
As for Marcy:
"To tell you an unwelcome truth, the Nebraska question has sadly shattered our party in all the free states and deprived it of that strength which was needed and could have been much more profitably used for the acquisition of Cuba." Quoted in Spencer, *The Victor and the Spoils*, p. 324

I made the point that Marcy opposed military intervention, not that he opposed acquiring Cuba. So this quote doesn't refute that point. I still feel that instead of trying to buy Cuba or outright declare war on Spain, the Pierce administration would settle for a middle ground and give the go ahead to the filibuster attempt that Pierce nearly approved in OTL. Given that this almost happened, it is more likely they would try that first before all out war.
 
I made the point that Marcy opposed military intervention, not that he opposed acquiring Cuba. So this quote doesn't refute that point. I still feel that instead of trying to buy Cuba or outright declare war on Spain, the Pierce administration would settle for a middle ground and give the go ahead to the filibuster attempt that Pierce nearly approved in OTL. Given that this almost happened, it is more likely they would try that first before all out war.

It doesn't but it certainly shows Marcy was willing to be pragmatic on the issue nor would he attempt to sabotage any actions. I also don't foresee Spain accepting Filibustering attempts for ever.
 
Top