An English-speaking, Pro-Slavery Nicaragua

[Imp]

Think that Texas will produce problems? I think an alternate history where Nicaragua becomes a puppet American dictatorship, or is outright annexed, would be much more fun. Amoral, yes, but pulling it off as Walker or keeping the US together while annexing it would be challenging. Even better than the Ostend Manifesto.

For info: http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/...(DOCID+ni0017) ( link may not work soon )

Nicaragua
Foreign Intervention, 1850-68
British and United States interests in Nicaragua grew during the mid-1800s because of the country's strategic importance as a transit route across the isthmus. British settlers seized the port of San Juan del Norte--at the mouth of the Río San Juan on the southern Caribbean coast--and expelled all Nicaraguan officials on January 1, 1848. The following year, Britain forced Nicaragua to sign a treaty recognizing British rights over the Miskito on the Caribbean coast. Britain's control over much of the Caribbean lowlands, which the British called the Mosquito Coast (present-day Costa de Mosquitos), from 1678 until 1894 was a constant irritant to Nicaraguan nationalists. The start of the gold rush in California in 1849 increased United States interests in Central America as a transoceanic route, and Nicaragua at first encouraged a United States presence to counterbalance the British.

The possibility of economic riches in Nicaragua attracted international business development. Afraid of Britain's colonial intentions, Nicaragua held discussions with the United States in 1849, leading to a treaty that gave the United States exclusive rights to a transit route across Nicaragua. In return, the United States promised protection of Nicaragua from other foreign intervention. On June 22, 1849, the first official United States representative, Ephraim George Squier, arrived in Nicaragua. Both liberals and conservatives welcomed the United States diplomat. A contract between Commodore Cornelius Vanderbilt, a United States businessman, and the Nicaraguan government was signed on August 26, 1849, granting Vanderbilt's company--the Accessory Transit Company--exclusive rights to build a transisthmian canal within twelve years. The contract also gave Vanderbilt exclusive rights, while the canal was being completed, to use a land-and-water transit route across Nicaragua, part of a larger scheme to move passengers from the eastern United States to California. The westbound journey across Nicaragua began by small boat from San Juan del Norte on the Caribbean coast, traveled up the Río San Juan to San Carlos on Lago de Nicaragua, crossed Lago de Nicaragua to La Virgen on the west shore, and then continued by railroad or stagecoach to San Juan del Sur on the Pacific coast. In September 1849, the United States-Nicaragua treaty, along with Vanderbilt's contract, was approved by the Nicaraguan Congress.

British economic interests were threatened by the United States enterprise led by Vanderbilt, and violence erupted in 1850 when the British tried to block the operations of the Accessory Transit Company. As a result, United States and British government officials held diplomatic talks and on April 19, 1850, without consulting the Nicaraguan government, signed the Clayton-Bulwer Treaty, in which both countries agreed that neither would claim exclusive power over a future canal in Central America nor gain exclusive control over any part of the region. Although the Nicaraguan government originally accepted the idea of a transit route because of the economic benefit it would bring Nicaragua, the operation remained under United States and British control. Britain retained control of the Caribbean port of San Juan del Norte, and the United States owned the vessels, hotels, restaurants, and land transportation along the entire transit route.

Continued unrest in the 1850s set the stage for two additional elements in Nicaragua history: frequent United States military interventions in Nicaragua and a propensity for Nicaragua politicians to call on the United States to settle domestic disputes. In 1855 a group of armed United States filibusters headed by William Walker, a soldier of fortune from Tennessee who had previously invaded Mexico, sailed to Nicaragua intent on taking over. Internal conflict facilitated Walker's entry into Nicaragua. In 1853 conservative General Fruto Chamorro had taken over the government and exiled his leading liberal opponents. Aided by the liberal government in neighboring Honduras, an exile army entered Nicaragua on May 5, 1854. The subsequent conflict proved prolonged and bloody; Chamorro declared that his forces would execute all armed rebels who fell into their hands, and the liberal leader, General Máximo Jérez, proclaimed that all government supporters were traitors to the nation.

The liberals enjoyed initial success in the fighting, but the tide turned in 1854 when Guatemala's conservative government invaded Honduras, forcing that nation to end its support of the liberals in Nicaragua. Chamorro's death from natural causes in March 1855 brought little respite to the beleaguered liberals, who began to look abroad for support. Through an agent, they offered Walker funds and generous land grants if he would bring a force of United States adventurers to their aid. Walker leaped at the chance--he quickly recruited a force of fifty-six followers and landed with them in Nicaragua on May 4, 1855.

Walker's initial band was soon reinforced by other recruits from the United States. Strengthened by this augmented force, Walker seized Granada, center of conservative power. The stunned conservative government surrendered, and the United States quickly recognized a new puppet liberal government with Patricio Rivas as president. Real power, however, remained with Walker, who had assumed command of the Nicaraguan army.

As Walker's power and the size of his army grew, conservative politicians throughout Central America became increasingly anxious. Encouraged by Britain, the conservative governments of the other four Central America governments agreed to send troops to Nicaragua. In March 1856, Costa Rica declared war on the adventurer, but an epidemic of cholera decimated the Costa Rican forces and forced their withdrawal. Encouraged by this victory, Walker began plans to have himself elected president and to encourage colonization of Nicaragua by North Americans. This scheme was too much even for his puppet president Rivas, who broke with Walker and his followers and sent messages to Guatemala and El Salvador requesting their help in expelling the filibusters.

Undeterred, Walker proceeded to hold a farcical election and install himself as president. Making English the country's official language and legalizing slavery, Walker also allied himself with Vanderbilt's rivals in the contest for control of the transit route, hoping that this alliance would provide both funds and transportation for future recruits. His call for Nicaragua's annexation by the United States as a slave state garnered some support from United States proslavery forces.

In the meantime, forces opposing Walker were rapidly gaining the upper hand, leading him to attack his liberal allies, accusing them of half-hearted support. Most Nicaraguans were offended by Walker's proslavery, pro-United States stance; Vanderbilt was determined to destroy him, and the rest of Central America actively sought his demise. The British also encouraged opposition to Walker as a means of curbing United States influence in the region. Even the United States government, fearful that plans to annex Nicaragua as a new slave state would fan the fires of sectional conflict growing within the United States, became opposed to his ambitions.

The struggle to expel Walker and his army from Nicaragua proved to be long and costly. In the process, the colonial city of Granada was burned, and thousands of Central Americans lost their lives. The combined opposition of Vanderbilt, the British Navy, and the forces of all of Central America, however, eventually defeated the filibusters. A key factor in Walker's defeat was the Costa Rican seizure of the transit route; the seizure permitted Walker's opponents to take control of the steamers on Lago de Nicaragua and thereby cut off much of Walker's access to additional recruits and finances. Vanderbilt played a major role in this effort and also supplied funds that enabled the Costa Ricans to offer free return passage to the United States to any of the filibusters who would abandon the cause. Many took advantage of this opportunity, and Walker's forces began to dwindle.

The final battle of what Nicaraguans called the "National War" (1856-57) took place in the spring of 1857 in the town of Rivas, near the Costa Rican border. Walker beat off the attacks of the Central Americans, but the strength and morale of his forces were declining, and it would be only a matter of time until he would be overwhelmed. At this point, Commander Charles H. Davis of the United States Navy, whose ship had been sent to Nicaragua's Pacific coast to protect United States economic interests, arranged a truce. On May 1, 1857, Walker and his remaining followers, escorted by a force of United States marines, evacuated Rivas, marched down to the coast, and took the ships back to the United States.

Walker's forced exile was short-lived, however; he made four more attempts to return to Central America (in 1857, 1858, 1859, and 1860). In 1860 Walker was captured by a British warship as he tried to enter Honduras. The British Navy turned him over to local authorities, and he was executed by a Honduran firing squad. Walker's activities provided Nicaraguans with a long- lasting suspicion of United States activities and designs upon their nation.

Originally a product of interparty strife, the National War ironically served as a catalyst for cooperation between the liberal and conservative parties. The capital was moved to Managua in an effort to dampen interparty strife, and on September 12, 1856, both parties had signed an agreement to join efforts against Walker. This pact marked the beginning of an era of peaceful coexistence between Nicaragua's political parties, although the onus of the liberals' initial support of Walker allowed the conservatives to rule Nicaragua for the next three decades. After Walker's departure, Patricio Rivas served as president for the third time. He remained in office until June 1857, when liberal General Máximo Jérez and conservative General Tomás Martínez assumed a bipartisan presidency. A Constituent Assembly convened in November of that year and named General Martínez as president (r. 1858-67).

The devastation and instability caused by the war in Nicaragua, as well as the opening of a railroad across Panama, adversely affected the country's transit route. After only a few years of operation in the early 1850s, the transit route was closed for five years from 1857 to 1862, and the entire effort was subsequently abandoned in April 1868. Despite the failure of the transit plan, United States interest in building a canal across Nicaragua persisted throughout most of the nineteenth century. By 1902, however, there was increasing support from the administration of United States president Theodore Roosevelt to build a transisthmian canal in Panama. The opening of the Panama Canal in 1914 effectively ended serious discussion of a canal across Nicaragua.

[Ideologue]

Always loved the Walker story. (I mean, it's weird and interesting; personally, Walker was repugnant, albeit, I suppose, with a can-do attitude.)

It must be in, of course.

Given the complexity of it though even I have trouble seeing how Walker's conquest of Nicaragua could be done without an event-driven chain of events. I'll give it a shot though: if population units can describe different general occupations (as they appear to) then a population movement can comprise largely of soldiers. Dependent upon the relative technological sophistication, ideology, and numbers, they might start a coup.

This mechanism could be useful elsewhere, for fomenting internal ethnic and political dissent from outside a country (I.R.A., Black Hand, Bolsheviks). But maybe Walker's such a unique case (random Americans take over Nicaragua) that if such a property were added, we'd see Irish gangs taking over New York (hmm) or German immigrants in South Dakota seceding and asking to be annexed to the Second Reich.

[HolisticGod]

Ideologue,

Yeah, the United States would be annexed to eight or nine countries if the probability was high enough...

I think this has to be represented through events, unfortunately.

[Norgesvenn]

The Nicaragua affair came to be, as I understand it, as a part of a general trend in the Southern states of the US of wanting to counter-balance the Northern states anti-slavery attitudes by adding more "slave territory" to the US. It could just as well have been Cuba.

Representing this through an event where you have the choice of "spreading our way of life" or something is a possibility, perhaps.

[HolisticGod]

Norg,

Eh... That was the idea over Cuba (and one that, in various forms, persists to this day).

Most of the involvement in Latin America originated with the northern power-base. Industrialists wanted cheap resources and convoy roots, capitalists wanted access to and control over markets, the Iron Triangle wanted to push Europeans out of the US' default sphere of influence, newspapermen got all hot and bothered over the idea of canals and civilizing the heathens and shooting jaguars...

The south was interested in the plains and northern Mexico. Anything further was simply too far-fetched prior to the civil war, and irrelevant afterward... As far as I know, only the fruitgrowers exerted a more than negligible impact on interventionist policies-and that had nothing to do with (American) slavery.

[Norgesvenn]

I'm mainly citing one single source (James McPherson's "Battly Cry of Freedom") on this issue, so I'm quite sure that I may be wrong.

[Deaghaidh]

Would make for a good AAR though, annexing Nicaragua (as well as no doubt many other central american and caribean territories, and perhaps mexico?) as Slave states, then taking them with you as the Confederacy. Or, invading Canada to balance the books, either way, it's good fun

[Tim O]

Originally posted by HolisticGod
Norg,

Eh... That was the idea over Cuba (and one that, in various forms, persists to this day).

Most of the involvement in Latin America originated with the northern power-base. Industrialists wanted cheap resources and convoy roots, capitalists wanted access to and control over markets, the Iron Triangle wanted to push Europeans out of the US' default sphere of influence, newspapermen got all hot and bothered over the idea of canals and civilizing the heathens and shooting jaguars...

The south was interested in the plains and northern Mexico. Anything further was simply too far-fetched prior to the civil war, and irrelevant afterward... As far as I know, only the fruitgrowers exerted a more than negligible impact on interventionist policies-and that had nothing to do with (American) slavery.

McPHerson (whom won the pulitzer prize) says that the states of Louisiana and Mississippi funded and armed four filibuster invasions of Cuba with the intent of making it a slave state. Polk tried to buy it for $100,000,000 amnd Pierce tried to buy it for $130,000,000.

[Deaghaidh]

Lousiana and mississippi, but not Florida? Seems like the natural place for any such movement to start from.

[Daoloth]

Originally posted by HolisticGod
Norg,

Eh... That was the idea over Cuba (and one that, in various forms, persists to this day).

Most of the involvement in Latin America originated with the northern power-base. Industrialists wanted cheap resources and convoy roots, capitalists wanted access to and control over markets, the Iron Triangle wanted to push Europeans out of the US' default sphere of influence, newspapermen got all hot and bothered over the idea of canals and civilizing the heathens and shooting jaguars...

I think you two are in different eras, perhaps. Walker's exploits, and indeed those of the filibusters (1840's-50s), were primarily pro-slavery, and had little to do with industrial economics (though certainly slave economics). Later intervention in Latin America (early 20th century) is often perceived, sometimes correctly, sometimes not, as being driven by Wall Street's demands.

[HolisticGod]

Tim,

As I said, the south was interested in slave-holding Cuba (large and wealthy enough for three states, in the early nineteenth century)...

But Latin America, on the whole, was a playground for more northerly ambitions.

Daoloth,

The two hallmarks of pre-industrial foreign policy, the Monroe Doctrine and the Spanish-American War (along with its progenitors), originated in northern political thinking and economic interests.

On the Walker incident in particular, I admit to knowing little... But I've never heard it suggested that his motive was sectionalism.

[Daoloth]

Originally posted by HolisticGod

On the Walker incident in particular, I admit to knowing little... But I've never heard it suggested that his motive was sectionalism.

But, it was. According to my last year's history book, The American Pageant, it was.

"The two hallmarks of pre-industrial foreign policy, the Monroe Doctrine and the Spanish-American War (along with its progenitors), originated in northern political thinking and economic interests."

Right, but that's irrelevant. That's not Walker's time; that's about two generations later. Like I suggested, you two are discussing different eras, and then one you're fixated on is not the one that is in the OP.

History professor Robert E. May suggests the following books in reference to Walker's period:

Manifest Destiny's Underworld: Filibustering in Antebellum America. University of North Carolina Press, 2002

John A. Quitman: Old South Crusader. Baton Rouge, LA: Louisiana State University Press, 1985. McLemore Prize, Mississippi Historical Society, 1986.

The Southern Dream of a Caribbean Empire, 1854-1861. Baton Rouge, LA: Louisiana State University Press, 1973. Paperback edition with new afterword. Athens, GA: University of Georgia Press, 1989.

You will not find anything about northern expansionism here. The drive was southern.

He also recommends these articles:

"Buchanan, James" and "Pierce, Franklin," in Encyclopedia of U.S. Foreign Relations (1997), 1: 187-188, 3: 396-397.

"Filibustering," "Kinney, Henry L.," "López, Narcisco," and "Walker, William," in Encyclopedia of Latin American History (1996), 2: 570-571, 3: 455, 5: 436-437.

"Cazneau, Jane Maria Eliza McManus," The New Handbook of Texas (1996), 1: 1052-53.

"Imperialism" in Richard N. Current, ed., Encyclopedia of the Confederacy (1993), 2: 808-809.

"Fighting South" and "Filibusters" in Encyclopedia of Southern Culture (1989), 1107, 1504.


I hope that helps clarify things a bit.

[Tim O]

Originally posted by HolisticGod
Tim,

As I said, the south was interested in slave-holding Cuba (large and wealthy enough for three states, in the early nineteenth century)...

On the Walker incident in particular, I admit to knowing little... But I've never heard it suggested that his motive was sectionalism.

It wasn't at first, but the vast majority of his support came from Southern Slaveholders so he reintroduced Slavery to Nicaragua.

[HolisticGod]

Tim,

Point taken.

Dunno much about Walker... I was answering the notion that US policy toward Latin America was a southern invention/driven by southern interests.

And given that, as you say, he was originally out for run-of-the-mill reasons, glory and power, it's not indicative of a larger trend.

Daoloth,

The Monroe Doctrine, er, significantly predates Walker's first expedition... In the space of US foreign policy, it was an aberration anyway. Sectionalism was principally domestic-even where it hampered or denied statehood (in California or Kansas or Cuba, for example) it was still limited to the Manifest Destiny, to zones of preexisting control.

American Pageant, by the way, is not a very credible source outside Middle American high schools...

[Daoloth]

Originally posted by HolisticGod


Daoloth,

The Monroe Doctrine, er, significantly predates Walker's first expedition... In the space of US foreign policy, it was an aberration anyway. Sectionalism was principally domestic-even where it hampered or denied statehood (in California or Kansas or Cuba, for example) it was still limited to the Manifest Destiny, to zones of preexisting control.

American Pageant, by the way, is not a very credible source outside Middle American high schools...

Maybe it isn't, but that doesn't make the fact that Walker was taking over Nicaragua for pro-slavery causes false. To assert such is a genetic fallacy.

I'm aware of the Monroe Doctrine, and it has little to do with northern industrial efforts. Furthermore, the US wasn't within the ability to enforce it until after Walker's time period. Still, look into my previous cites for more information on the filibusters..

[HolisticGod]

Daoloth,

And read my previous post on Walker...

I'm not disputing the role of sectionalism in his adventure. This is about the larger issue of US policies in Latin America, which were, principally, rooted in the north.

[Tim O]

Originally posted by Deaghaidh
Lousiana and mississippi, but not Florida? Seems like the natural place for any such movement to start from.

Florida just became a state in 1845, a was very sparsly populated. Not wealthy enough to finance or support such an expidition.