Imperialism

[Rob9641]

James McPherson in Battle Cry of Freedom notes several failed instances of attempted invasions of Cuba from New Orleans, prior to the war ("filibusters" - that's where the word originated in English). Then, of course, there was Tennesseean William Walker: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Walker_(filibuster)

"William Walker convinced many Southerners of the desirability of creating a slave-holding empire in tropical Latin America. In 1861, when U.S. Senator John J. Crittenden proposed that the 36°30' parallel north be declared as a line of demarcation between free and slave territories, some Republicans denounced such an arrangement, saying that it 'would amount to a perpetual covenant of war against every people, tribe, and State owning a foot of land between here and Tierra del Fuego.'"

 

[CSA Today]

Yes, some opposed the war, seeing it as a naked land grab for the pro-slavery powers.

R

In a period of the country's history when some people claim the South was running it, exactly how many new slave states came about as results of the Mexican War?

"If we were wrong in our contest, then the Declaration of Independence of 1776 was a grave mistake and the revolution to which it led was a crime. If Washington was a patriot; Lee cannot have been a rebel."

Wade Hampton

 

[Mark F. Jenkins]

In a period of the country's history when some people claim the South was running it, exactly how many new slave states came about as results of the Mexican War?

Er... the fact that they failed is not proof that they didn't try. By that logic, nobody tried to make Kansas a slave state, either.

 

[Nathanb1]

So it all boils down to speculation? Where did this rumor start? Thanks for all the answers thus far

I think a lot of it goes back to William Walker's exploits in Nicaragua, pre-war. And of course, don't forget that any time Texas comes up, everyone rushes to point at American expansionism...never mind that the Mexican people in Zacatecas were ALSO rebelling against Santa Anna and his government. Let's face it...the easiest places to expand happened to be those owned (but not necessarily settled) by Spain/Mexico....who's the closest? People from southern states (although I noticed a lot of "patriots" in the State Cemetery on Saturday who were born in New York and New England states!)

 

[rpkennedy]

In a period of the country's history when some people claim the South was running it, exactly how many new slave states came about as results of the Mexican War?

"If we were wrong in our contest, then the Declaration of Independence of 1776 was a grave mistake and the revolution to which it led was a crime. If Washington was a patriot; Lee cannot have been a rebel."

Wade Hampton

As Mark pointed out, just because it didn't work out the way they wanted, doesn't mean that wasn't on their minds prior to the war. Besides, the Mexican War was very much the slave power's last hurrah. Their power in Washington grew had been diminishing and would continue to diminish up until the Civil War. Demographics were not on their side and it only grew more lopsided from the late 1840s on.

R

 

[ole]

So it all boils down to speculation? Where did this rumor start? Thanks for all the answers thus far

Not exactly a speculative rumor. It was talked about by some rather prominent people.

The country, under Polk, kinda supported a war with Mexico when Manifest Destiny was still possible. After his term was the talk of fillibusters and a few aborted attempts to take land in Central America. Then it became wishful thinking and the subject of speeches -- the slave states couldn't take over lands on their own, and non-slave states weren't interested in going to war to expand the power and wealth of slave states.

Some respected historians have said that Mexico officially desired a treaty with the CSA for purposes of a buffer between it and the more militarily powerful North. Davis refused to meet with them, as he honorably thought that the Confederacy, when successful, might have to seize that country.

So it boils down to pipe-dreams, but they were real, live pipe-dreams.

 

[OpnCoronet]

Does anyone have an idea of what Davis and members of his administration(and others of the south's ruling oligarchy), thought of the Black Warrior Affair or the Ostend Manifesto, before the war?

 

[favedave]

Far from being speculation, the Confederacy's plan for the future was predicated on accquiring a great deal more land suitable for plantation agriculture as soon as possible. That meant first Cuba, and then as much territory in Central America as possible. The states bounding the Gulf of Mexico, from Florida to Texas were the results of earlier Southern filabustering expeditions, i.e. invading land belonging to other nations, then going to war with that foreign government to become "independent" and then petitioning Congress to annex the land to the United States of America. The Walker Expedition a several others between the Mexican War and the Civil War merely added proof that no new slaves states would be admitted to the Union increasingly under the control of those with Free Soil sentiments. All it took to stymie the Southerners was a 51% majority in the House of Representatives to kill any spending bill. It is difficult to Bloody Kansas was fought more to preserve the right to have new slave states in the union than it was to make Kansas one of them. Kansas itself was not really a suitable place for plantation agriculture to flourish. The Free Soil movement which elected Lincoln President in 1860 was also responsible for the Republican Party's Freemont campaign of 1856. Rather than any abolitionist s had as its foundation the barring the use of slave labor in any newly accquired Territory, just as it had been in the Northwest Territories between the Ohio River and the Great Lakes.

Had the war gone as the Confederacy expected it to, Southern independence would have followed the loss at First Bull Run.

Then, with 100,000 men at arms, trained and some even battle tested, the Confederacy would have been in very good shape to take on any adventures in real estate which were practical. Cuba would certainly top the list. A war with Spain, or France would not have raised too many eyebrows in London and the Union Navy wasn't built up enough to make it a credible threat.

 

[ForeverFree]

Ostend Manifesto
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


The Ostend Manifesto was a document written in 1854 that described the rationale for the United States to purchase Cuba from Spain while implying that the U.S. should declare war if Spain refused. Cuba's annexation had long been a goal of U.S. expansionists, particularly as the U.S. set its sights southward following the admission of California to the Union. However, diplomatically, the country had been content to see the island remain in Spanish hands so long as it did not pass to a stronger power such as Britain or France. A product of the debates over slavery in the United States, Manifest Destiny, and the Monroe Doctrine, the Ostend Manifesto proposed a shift in foreign policy, justifying the use of force to seize Cuba in the name of national security.

During the administration of U.S. President Franklin Pierce, Southern expansionists called for Cuba's acquisition as a slave state, but the galvanizing effect of the Kansas–Nebraska Act left the administration unsure of how to proceed. At the suggestion of Secretary of State William L. Marcy, Minister to Spain Pierre Soulé met with Minister to Great Britain James Buchanan and Minister to France John Y. Mason at Ostend, Belgium to discuss the matter. The resulting dispatch, drafted at Aix-la-Chapelle and sent in October 1854, outlined the reasons a U.S. purchase of Cuba would be beneficial to all parties involved and declared that the U.S. would be "justified in wresting" the island from Spanish hands if Spain refused to sell. To Marcy's chagrin, the flamboyant Soulé had made no secret of the meetings, causing unwanted publicity in both Europe and the U.S. In the increasingly volatile political climate of 1854, the administration feared the political repercussions of making the dispatch's contents known, but pressure from journalists and politicians alike continued to mount.

Four months after its drafting, the dispatch was published in full at the behest of the House of Representatives. Dubbed the "Ostend Manifesto", it was immediately denounced in both the Northern states and Europe. It became a rallying cry for Northerners in the events that would later be termed Bleeding Kansas, and the political fallout was a significant setback for the Pierce Administration, effectively ending any possibility of Cuba's annexation until after the American Civil War. While the Ostend Manifesto was never acted upon, American interest in the region would next surface in the 1870s, ultimately leading to Cuba's independence.

See more of this wiki entry here.

 

[Nathanb1]

The states bounding the Gulf of Mexico, from Florida to Texas were the results of earlier Southern filabustering expeditions, i.e. invading land belonging to other nations, then going to war with that foreign government to become "independent" and then petitioning Congress to annex the land to the United States of America.

Not exactly.

 

[Freddy]

Even the Northern Democrats who nominated Stephen Douglas wanted Cuba.

Democratic Party Platform; June 18, 1860

1. Resolved, That we, the Democracy of the Union in Convention assembled, hereby declare our affirmance of the resolutions unanimously adopted and declared as a platform of principles by the Democratic Convention at Cincinnati, in the year 1856, believing that Democratic principles are unchangeable in their nature, when applied to the same subject matters; and we recommend, as the only further resolutions, the following:

2. Inasmuch as difference of opinion exists in the Democratic party as to the nature and extent of the powers of a Territorial Legislature, and as to the powers and duties of Congress, under the Constitution of the United States, over the institution of slavery within the Territories,
Resolved, That the Democratic party will abide by the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States upon these questions of Constitutional Law.

3. Resolved, That it is the duty of the United States to afford ample and complete protection to all its citizens, whether at home or abroad, and whether native or foreign born.

4. Resolved, That one of the necessities of the age, in a military, commercial, and postal point of view, is speedy communications between the Atlantic and Pacific States; and the Democratic party pledge such Constitutional Government aid as will insure the construction of a Railroad to the Pacific coast, at the earliest practicable period.

5. Resolved, that the Democratic party are in favor of the acquisition of the Island of Cuba on such terms as shall be honorable to ourselves and just to Spain.

6. Resolved, That the enactments of the State Legislatures to defeat the faithful execution of the Fugitive Slave Law, are hostile in character, subversive of the Constitution, and revolutionary in their effect.

7. Resolved, That it is in accordance with the interpretation of the Cincinnati platform, that during the existence of the Territorial Governments the measure of restriction, whatever it may be, imposed by the Federal Constitution on the power of the Territorial Legislature over the subject of the domestic relations, as the same has been, or shall hereafter be finally determined by the Supreme Court of the United States, should be respected by all good citizens, and enforced with promptness and fidelity by every branch of the general government.

June 18, 1860.