WI: Franklin Pierce Filibusters Cuba

Franklin Pierce's major foreign policy goal was to acquire Cuba. His administration drew up the infamous Ostend Manifesto, threatening war with Spain over the island. In 1853 former Mississippi Governor John A. Quitman planned to organize a force of 3,000-4,000 men that would invade Cuba, "liberate" it from Spanish rule, then establish a pro-US government. The end game was to annex Cuba as a pro-slavery territory. In 1854 Pierce dithered back and forth on whether or not to allow Quitman's filibuster, and in the end he blocked the expedition. He realized that allowing the filibuster would hurt the Democrats in an election year while they were also dealing with the fallout over Kansas-Nebraska. Further, the military expected the invasion to be a disaster. But what if Pierce, perhaps in a drunken stupor, had allowed Quitman to invade Cuba?
 
Hurt is possibly a understatement. It might divide the party as even some northern democrats were unhappy with the southern domination of the party. The main issue is that the opposition was badly organized and so it's hard to tell what would happen their.
 
Hurt is possibly a understatement. It might divide the party as even some northern democrats were unhappy with the southern domination of the party. The main issue is that the opposition was badly organized and so it's hard to tell what would happen their.

It could become Pierce's Bay of Pigs, only on a larger scale. What's most interesting to me is how this might affect American policy making vis a vis Cuba in 1898, provided that it's still under Spanish rule.
 
Such a fiasco could see Pierce impeached by the House and the Democratic Party so shattered that the Republicans win the 1856 election with Fremont.

As for US-Cuba relations, the question will come up again when Spain, an aging and fragile colonial power, inevitably loses control of the island to a popular independence movement. By then the 1854 incident will be a distant memory and the US can jump in and support Cuban independence for the purpose of putting the island under their sphere of influence.
 
Such a fiasco could see Pierce impeached by the House and the Democratic Party so shattered that the Republicans win the 1856 election with Fremont.

I doubt Pierce would be impeached. The House opposition was so disorganized that they couldn't even elect a Speaker until 1856, and he ended up being a Know Nothing of all things. Further, with the anti-Democratic vote still being split in 1856 (and Fremont still being smeared as a Catholic, which he wasn't) Fremont doesn't have a prayer of winning. Either Buchanan still wins, or Fillmore is elected by the House as a Compromise candidate.
 
I think the bigger question is whether Spain considers this a declaration of war?

Technically speaking the United States hasn't invaded Cuba, rather an independent force has. Pierce can feign ignorance, but if the invasion fails and the leaders are captured then nothing will stop them from revealing they were covertly supported by the US. IMO the events would play out much like the Bay of Pigs in 1961. Except while JFK's approvals went up, Pierce would be even less popular in the North. I think the damage it would do is overstated, but Pierce would come under bipartisan attacks for trying to create a "slave empire" in the Caribbean. He'd also be seen as a hopeless incompetent responsible for a humiliating military disaster. The Republicans do better in 1854, but not well enough to control Congress. One potential butterfly is that Lincoln is elected to the US Senate in 1854, as he almost was.

But speaking of the Bay of Pigs, I wonder if that whole fiasco is butterflied. Eisenhower and the CIA would have Pierce's example to reference, so they might abandon the idea altogether and just stick with economic warfare and covert sabotage to undermine Castro.
 
Spain's own domestic politics aren't being talked about here which is odd since there were quite a number of reforms for dealing with Cuba being debated by the Spanish Government at this time. This is what would lead to the so called Little War as liberal reformers were pushing for reforms and then a reactionary governor would take them away later. If the Americans filibustered Cuba, this could potentially give the Liberal reformers the power needed to bring proper reforms to Cuba. Which might butterfly the numerous conflicts in Cuba away, since regardless if there is war with America directly or not, since with the Liberal reforms(including abolishing slavery) and bringing the armies from Spain to defend Cuba it might very well tighten the bonds between colony and motherland. I am giving the Americans the benefit of the doubt and letting them take at least the city of Cárdenas if not a bit more before being driven off.
 

Deleted member 9338

But what if the filibuster works and the invaders win or at least can buy the island. Does the US Congress anex it immediately or some time in the next decade?
 
But what if the filibuster works and the invaders win or at least can buy the island. Does the US Congress anex it immediately or some time in the next decade?

Polk, Pierce, and Buchanan all made attempts to buy Cuba. In fact the alternative to filibustering Cuba was buying it, which Pierce eventually settled on. Every time an offer was made Spain rejected it. And the filibuster was unlikely to work, which is why the POD has Pierce - an alcoholic who drank during his White House years - green light the invasion "in a drunken stupor." The fact that he even considered it, and probably would've given the go ahead if not for Kansas-Nebraska, shows just how compromised his leadership was.
 
Assuming the filibuster *works (i.e. it makes significant progress into Cuba before being defeated by some combination of malaria, local resistance, unsteady supply lines, and direct Spanish military action), and the province is annexed to the USA (either w/o war or with the USA winning the war) what does it mean for the civil war?
 
(Sorry if I came across as 'I don't believe you!' I just wanted a source). But that doesn't indicate Spain was willing to sell in 1870? Just that the rebels hinted at it and grant sent a half-hearted offer to madrid?

For one, Dan Sickles was the U.S. Ambassador to Spain, so it was a very high level effort involving the actions of the Secretary of State, among others. As for Spain, Juan Prim was willing and had been floating the idea prior to his assassination but found domestic opinion limiting him.
 
Top