WI Cuba acquired by US in 1854?

oca2073

Assume the Black Warrior Affair escalates and it becomes a war. Ostend Manifesto has not been issued but lots of southern Democrats obviously want Cuba.

1) If the US win, would Cuba be annexed as a slave territory? Would Congress vote in favour?
2) Does this change the dynamics leading up to the Civil War?
3) Assuming US retains Cuba past the Civil War and into the 20th century can the English language replace Spanish over the decades like in the Philippines due to be public schooling? Or does Cuba become a bilingual island?
4) How much of Cuban nationalism is butterflied away? Would the US be competent administrators of Cuba until they are given self-rule by Congress? Or would rebellions constantly break out?
5) Does Cuba eventually become a state? Or does WASP sentiment prevent this from happening?
 
Last edited:

ebayaddict2020

1. Yes, but in exchange no Kansas Nebraska act, so slavery doesn't expand beyond Missouri line.
2. Possibly, no angry between the north and south in 1854 mean no Republican party, and most likely a long difference in time before another issue cause a tension between North and South.
3. Bilingual, unless major population shift.
4. If the slave owners on Cuba get power like other slave states then it unlikely they would rebel. Slaves would rebel if the opportunity arise due to an alternative civil war perhaps. Or the free African and mixed population are mistreated is another possible source of tension.
5. It would be a state in the 19th century so the democrats could get two senator and house of representatives number to increase power in congress.
 

Doesntmatter

Not really possible in that timeframe (without an earlier POD at least or someone else's help). The Spanish navy under Isabella II was actually quite strong and the mid-century US navy was quite weak, much weaker than what it was capable of maintaining.

If you want Cuba as a US state, you should strike earlier, probably during the Napoleonic Wars or in the decades immediately afterward. The US could have probably handily crushed Spain.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Doesntmatter said:
Not really possible in that timeframe (without an earlier POD at least or someone else's help). The Spanish navy under Isabella II was actually quite strong and the mid-century US navy was quite weak, much weaker than what it was capable of maintaining.

If you want Cuba as a US state, you should strike earlier, probably during the Napoleonic Wars or in the decades immediately afterward. The US could have probably handily crushed Spain.
Click to expand...
Where would we find data to prove those trendlines one way or the other?

So the Spanish Navy, very weak during Napoleonic Wars? Well probably not before Trafalgar. But a US invasion of Cuba (and naval component to a Florida campaign and a Texas), could be doable in the 1806-1811 timeframe, before the War of 1812 started? Or in 1812-1815 in a TL where the war with Britain was avoided?

US had the naval chops to pull off a Cuba invasion in the 2nd Monroe or JQ Adams Administrations [1821-1828]? The Jackson, Van Buren years [1829-1840]? The Harrison, Tyler, Polk years [1841-48]?
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Doesntmatter said:
Not really possible in that timeframe (without an earlier POD at least or someone else's help). The Spanish navy under Isabella II was actually quite strong and the mid-century US navy was quite weak, much weaker than what it was capable of maintaining.
Click to expand...

So you're saying that because of a naval imbalance favoring Spain, a US conquest attempt in 1854 would be impossible.

Taking that as given, was Spain's naval superiority *so obvious* to President Pierce, and his Cabinet, and the House and Senate leadership that if American BLUFs and filibusters to get the territory failed, they would not *possibly* declare war or order an invasion?

Because even if the US tries to invade and Spain cleans its clock, that's a hella interesting scenario, with potential to reshape a lot of things in the 1850s and beyond.

If the US tries it - are its forces all defeated at sea, including any troop transports, before any Army forces can be landed in Cuba? Or could the US haul a nontrivial Army, in local terms, to land in Cuba to capture some towns and forts, only to have Spanish fleet reinforcements drive off and defeat the US fleet and leave the US army in isolation?

If Pierce and the Congressional Democrats get behind starting a war, and sacrifice Kansas-Nebraska for it, is that enough to sustain war support through hard times, or could we see, with the war identified with the cause of slavery, significant anti-war agitation in many of the Navy's northeastern homeport and shipbuilding cities, and a conscientious objectorship problem among its northern-tilting officer corps?

Land and naval defeats in Cuba could be both depressing, and sectionally divisive if southern pro-war states feel their Army would have it in the bag if the northern Navy had the machines and valor to support the Army, or more darkly, they can suspect northern interests extending into Naval command didn't *want* to win. But at the same time the Army, disproportionately southern, but still with many northern officers, could lose many of its most experienced officers and mens. So we could have a secession that is fought even more by armies and navies built from scratch, or a secession, not fought at all.

The possibilities from this kind of military failure scenario are *juicy*, at least some of them.
 

Kellan Sullivan

The US offered to fund/support the Restoration of Carlos, conde de Montemolin if he would grant them Cuba. Montemolin replied that he would rather remain in exile than make a decision that would compromise the integrity of Spain and her empire. So him being slightly less stubborn and slightly more rational being restored on the throne of Spain by US troops would be interesting 19th century for Spain going forward
 
bdbxwz

bdbxwz

I do wonder why don't US just take those islands in Caribean such as Cuba and Hati for themselves back then? Sure US may not be as strong as they are now but surely take those islands won't be that big a problem? I mean they did take Hati for quiet a few years.
Was it because take those islands won't be profitable?
 

Evil Crusader

bdbxwz said:
I do wonder why don't US just take those islands in Caribean such as Cuba and Hati for themselves back then? Sure US may not be as strong as they are now but surely take those islands won't be that big a problem? I mean they did take Hati for quiet a few years.
Was it because take those islands won't be profitable?
Click to expand...
Lack of political will, and of course, potential Euro intervention.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Didn't somebody, maybe @Jim Smitty, once do a scenario, where a premature US war with the Spain over Cuba (I forget which decade, maybe 1870s, 60s, or 50s), ends up being countered by a Spanish counter-invasion of New Orleans and/or Florida?
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Jim Smitty said:
It was the 1870s IIRC
Click to expand...
Yes - https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/new-balancing.458744/page-4

New Balancing - the TLDR of it is the war starts then over the Virginius Affair, but the US is slow to get off the mark, the Spaniards throw the first punch with a landing in New Orleans which basically amounts to a capture and raid expedition. That sort of starts and concludes the Spanish war effort with a hard kick to the hornet's nest, because anticipating a swarm of American hornets, the Spanish withdraw their main forces back to deal with their ongoing civil war, and essentially write off the loss of Cuba, Puerto Rico and most of Micronesia to the Americans by local forces.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
ebayaddict2020 said:
1. Yes, but in exchange no Kansas Nebraska act, so slavery doesn't expand beyond Missouri line.
2. Possibly, no angry between the north and south in 1854 mean no Republican party, and most likely a long difference in time before another issue cause a tension between North and South.
3. Bilingual, unless major population shift.
4. If the slave owners on Cuba get power like other slave states then it unlikely they would rebel. Slaves would rebel if the opportunity arise due to an alternative civil war perhaps. Or the free African and mixed population are mistreated is another possible source of tension.
5. It would be a state in the 19th century so the democrats could get two senator and house of representatives number to increase power in congress.
Click to expand...
Mostly agree. IF the US can win.
 
BELFAST

BELFAST

Competition from sugar plantations in Cuba would probably bankrupt sugar plantations in Florida.
Cigars might become more popular in America.
 
Last edited:
Mitridates the Great

Mitridates the Great

oca2073 said:
Assume the Black Warrior Affair escalates and it becomes a war. Ostend Manifesto has not been issued but lots of southern Democrats obviously want Cuba.

1) If the US win, would Cuba be annexed as a slave territory? Would Congress vote in favour?
2) Does this change the dynamics leading up to the Civil War?
3) Assuming US retains Cuba past the Civil War and into the 20th century can the English language replace Spanish over the decades like in the Philippines due to be public schooling? Or does Cuba become a bilingual island?
4) How much of Cuban nationalism is butterflied away? Would the US be competent administrators of Cuba until they are given self-rule by Congress? Or would rebellions constantly break out?
5) Does Cuba eventually become a state? Or does WASP sentiment prevent this from happening?
Click to expand...
1) They would divide Cuba in two, Western Cuba and Eastern Cuba. The slave area is where there is a greater concentration of sugar plantations.

2) What it does is add a four-way front between Confederates, Unionists, slave rebels, and Cuban nationalists.

3) The United States will make a determined effort to uproot all traces of Spanish culture in Cuba as "education and civilization of the inferiors." We can expect them to finish demolishing all the historic architecture that survived the battles of the Civil War, as well as to make much more efforts to implement a Radical Reconstruction in Cuba than in all the rest of the Confederation combined. (Mainly because that gives them the funds and resources needed for "cultural cleansing").

4) Cuban nationalism will probably break out in revolts that will be repressed with plenty of Cuban blood spilled. We can expect the island to be the scene of strong tensions. Ironically, reconciliation between North and South would be accelerated by a shared interest in keeping Cubans down and with American boots on their necks. The competence of the administrators (military, of course) will be limited exclusively to ordering troop deployments and opening fire on anyone who seems to be a problem. (If that means someone who steals a loaf of bread gets shot by five soldiers, so be it: It's a small price to pay for carrying the "rule of law" and "Western civilization.")

5) Cuba will end up like Puerto Rico: wanting to be a state, whether from the United States or independent, because they are fed up with the indifference and negligence with which they are treated by DC (that is, if the United States remembers that they exist). But successive US administrations insist on refusing to accept Cuba's statehood, as well as treating independence as a betrayal worthy of being repressed with overwhelming force.
 

oca2073

Mitridates the Great said:
3) The United States will make a determined effort to uproot all traces of Spanish culture in Cuba as "education and civilization of the inferiors." We can expect them to finish demolishing all the historic architecture that survived the battles of the Civil War, as well as to make much more efforts to implement a Radical Reconstruction in Cuba than in all the rest of the Confederation combined. (Mainly because that gives them the funds and resources needed for "cultural cleansing").
Click to expand...
They never did this for Puerto Rico. Puerto Rico remains Spanish-speaking because 1) it was taken in 1898 long after this proposed scenario, 2) it is geographically much further from continental US. The point is no major program to eradicate local culture was foisted on PR.
Mitridates the Great said:
4) Cuban nationalism will probably break out in revolts that will be repressed with plenty of Cuban blood spilled. We can expect the island to be the scene of strong tensions. Ironically, reconciliation between North and South would be accelerated by a shared interest in keeping Cubans down and with American boots on their necks. The competence of the administrators (military, of course) will be limited exclusively to ordering troop deployments and opening fire on anyone who seems to be a problem. (If that means someone who steals a loaf of bread gets shot by five soldiers, so be it: It's a small price to pay for carrying the "rule of law" and "Western civilization.")
Click to expand...
So the Cubans are NEVER given self-rule by Congress? But rather the US agrees to fund military ops on Cuba for decades regardless of the expense required... This wouldn't go over well with the US public for one, who hated imperialism. Such atrocities in Cuba (as you mention) would be easily spread throughout US due to its geographical proximity and are not sustainable long term.

Also, if Cuba is split between East/West, it is likely only the East becomes a problem as it did historically. Terrain-wise the East is capable of hosting guerrillas, the West was much more compliant to Spanish rule. I don't see why the western parts of Cuba would not accept US rule or why Congress wouldn't eventually give self-rule to Cuba as a means of reconciling with the rebels.
Mitridates the Great said:
5) Cuba will end up like Puerto Rico: wanting to be a state, whether from the United States or independent, because they are fed up with the indifference and negligence with which they are treated by DC (that is, if the United States remembers that they exist). But successive US administrations insist on refusing to accept Cuba's statehood, as well as treating independence as a betrayal worthy of being repressed with overwhelming force.
Click to expand...
Puerto Rico was granted the ability to vote on independence in referendums numerous times throughout the 20th century and the reason it was ignored is because it is a comparatively small island further away from the US. Since Cuba is over 10x larger than PR and geographically closer, you will see migration both ways as opposed to exclusively Spanish speakers moving to the US.

It is very possible Cuba declares independence from the US in the 20th century, but signs an association agreement allowing Cuban nationals to reside in the US similar to some Pacific nations. In return, the US is allowed military base, is responsible for military protection, gives annual economic aid, and Cuba agrees to align its foreign policy with US.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top