What if the "Virginius Affair" led to an Anglo-Spanish War?

[raharris1973]

I am converting this PoD, that is often used for getting an early Spanish-American War, in 1873, to get an Anglo-Spanish War instead.

My reasoning is simple. I've learned the affair of rogue Spanish executions involved British citizens as well as American, and the Royal Navy was involved in halting the incident. Furthermore, unlike the Americans, who may well have been behind the Spanish in the technology of their available ocean-going ironclad ships, the Royal Navy would be a shoo-in to defeat the Spanish fleet anywhere around the globe. Plus the British didn't like slavery and this could speed things along.

Here's some background:

The Virginius affair which was a diplomatic dispute that occurred from October 1873 to February 1875 between the United States, the United Kingdom, and Spain (then in control of Cuba), during the Ten Years' War. Virginius was a fast American ship hired by Cuban insurrectionists to land men and munitions in Cuba to attack the Spanish regime there. It was captured by the Spanish, who wanted to try the men onboard (many of whom were American and British citizens) as pirates and execute them. The Spanish executed 53 of the men but stopped when the British government demanded it when HMS Niobe, arrived at the city of Santiago where the executions were taking place. The commander of the ship, Sir Lambton Loraine, immediately ordered the Spanish to cease the executions. Loraine even went so far as to threaten to bombard the city if his demands were not met. Spain relented and halted the executions, sparing the surviving crew of the Virginius.

One of the thing mentioned in the clip is that at the time of the affair, the Spanish ironclad Arapiles was in Brooklyn, New York for repairs that lasted from May to January 1874, Being a more modern ironclad, the United States Navy had no warship in its inventory capable of engaging it. This led to the sickening realization that if war had broken out, the Spanish warship could have begun shelling New York City with impunity, the US Navy powerless to stop it. Had Spain sent its fleet to battle, the US Navy would be fighting an enemy with a larger number of more advanced ships. The US Navy was surpassed by Spain both in quality and quantity. To make matters worse, the few warships the United States had were incapable of fighting abroad. The available ironclads were originally designed for operation in coastal areas and on rivers. They could hardly make the 100 mile journey to Cuba much less sail to Spain from across the Atlantic.

But what if there was no peaceful settlement and war broke out between the United States and Spain in 1873.

What if the Disraeli government decides to go a couple steps further and issues an ultimatum, perhaps alone, perhaps jointly with the United States, insisting on mediating between Spain and the Cuban rebels?

I'm presuming Spain will have to refuse on honor grounds and the British can obliterate the Spanish fleet around Cuba, land marines, link up with the Cuban rebels, and voila, Cuba has slavery abolished 13 years early and independence 25 years early.

I'm assuming Britain wouldn't be trying to seize Cuba for itself and adding more political complications with the Cubans, US, and Latin American republics.

But, if Disraeli's already worked up the jingo spirit against the old love to hate 'em whipping boy enemy of Spain, there is plenty of scope elsewhere in the global Spanish empire for British acquisitiveness.

In the Caribbean, there's Puerto Rico. But, I suspect that's best left alone, either made independent or left in the hands of Spain (although made to abolish slavery if that hadn't been done), since American republics would get irritated and it adds nothing Britain doesn't already have from its numerous other Caribbean bases.

However, in the Pacific, the British could lay claim to the Philippines and the whole of the Spanish East Indies, including, Palau, the Caroline and Marianas islands. This supplements Britains trade position around China and Japan, adding to the string of colonies and concessions from Shanghai to Hong Kong to Malaya, Borneo and Singapore, Lower Burma, and the Antipodes.

In Africa, Britain can grab Fernando Poo and Rio Muni and any forts on the southern Moroccan coast of Rio Muni.

If greedy, Britain could try for the Canaries, or Minorca again, but that's really rubbing it in and giving Spain another Gibraltar or Alsace-Lorraine like grievance, in addition to seeming a bit uncontrollably grabby to France and the rest of the continent. But Disraeli and the Royal Navy can do it.

What are the global, European and British, American, and Spanish domestic consequences from there?

[TheRomanSlayer]

A British Philippines by the 1870s would become an extension of British Malaya, but with a massive Catholic population that they're dealing with, I'm not sure if the Brits would be able to stomach another potential Catholic rebellion, like the situation in Ireland. However, America had the Monroe Doctrine to enforce, which would make British Cuba a bit more difficult to achieve. Perhaps the British would come to an agreement with the US, where the latter could seize control of Spain's remaining American colonies, while Britain would seize its remaining Asian colonies.

One other thing though: by including the formerly Spanish East Indies into British Malaya, you'd technically have a delicate balance of power between the Christian and Muslim communities there, but there is also the Brooke dynasty of Sarawak to consider as well. Perhaps British East Indies would be split apart in a different way, with Brooke controlling Sarawak and the Christian dominated areas of the Philippines, while the Sultan of Sulu would rule Sabah, its traditional holdings in Sulu Island, and the areas of the Philippines that we call IOTL the Autonomous Region of Muslim Mindanao.

It might have been too late to turn the Christian areas of the Philippines and the Brooke Dynasty's State of Sarawak into another Dominion within the British Empire, but it might become an autonomous client state within said empire. Culturally speaking, Filipinos would learn how to speak English decades early, but the whole concept of benevolent assimilation would have played out differently, or it wouldn't happen at all. The only thing that's left is that how will this affect the later Anglo-Japanese Alliance, if Japan could not expand anywhere else except for Korea and Taiwan.

[raharris1973]

Thanks to lordroel the adminstrator for implementing the edit to the thread title.

[lordroel]

Dec 13, 2021 5:14:06 GMT raharris1973 said:

Thanks to lordroel the adminstrator for implementing the edit to the thread title.

I was wondering why it said Test Thread, so I fixed it if that was okay.

[miletus12]

I have a series of questions.

1. Why would the British stir up trouble in the Caribbean and invite a coalition war against them? There is France, Spain and Holland in the Caribbean and one also remembers a very hostile United States. It has been six years since a the British and French engaged in economic warfare against the Americans by violating a blockade the Americans established against the rebel Confederacy. Many British, French and Spanish blockade runners were seized with British, Spanish and French citizens killed in the process. One of the remaining sore points in addition was the predations of British supported Confederate pirates. CSS Alabama was not exactly crewed by "southerners". She was "British".

2. Russia. American ally during the same war. Always looking to make trouble.

3. Cuba. The Ten Years War was mounted by sugar oligarchs who wanted to change the nature of slavery in Cuba. The racial component was to reduce reliance on Africans now that there was teeth in the anti-piracy patrols, and shift over to the importation of Chinese indentured labor. The Americans and the British were letting that human trafficking in slavery happen willy nilly.

4. Speaking of Americans... the Cuban sugar interests who instigated the Cuban Revolution were backed financially and politically by their American co-investors and not so much by the British who had much less financial stake in the Cuban economy. The "pirates" of the Virginius affair were aboard a "Confederate blockade runner" built in Glasgow, but captured by the United States during their civil war. Sold off in a prize court, she was purchased and placed into American merchant marine service. John F. Patterson, acting as agent for the Cuban rebel Manuel Quesada and his American backers, Marshall and J. Roberts. There is little British involvement at that juncture, however one notes the USN was covering the SS Virginius' runs to Cuba to aid the rebels. This was exactly the shenanigans the British in the Caribbean pulled against the United States between 1862 and 1865, so it might be a form of irony?

3. How do the Philippine Islands become involved and what does France think about it, since they are kind of active in the South China Sea?

[stevep]

Dec 12, 2021 23:35:36 GMT raharris1973 said:

I am converting this PoD, that is often used for getting an early Spanish-American War, in 1873, to get an Anglo-Spanish War instead.

My reasoning is simple. I've learned the affair of rogue Spanish executions involved British citizens as well as American, and the Royal Navy was involved in halting the incident. Furthermore, unlike the Americans, who may well have been behind the Spanish in the technology of their available ocean-going ironclad ships, the Royal Navy would be a shoo-in to defeat the Spanish fleet anywhere around the globe. Plus the British didn't like slavery and this could speed things along.

Here's some background:

The Virginius affair which was a diplomatic dispute that occurred from October 1873 to February 1875 between the United States, the United Kingdom, and Spain (then in control of Cuba), during the Ten Years' War. Virginius was a fast American ship hired by Cuban insurrectionists to land men and munitions in Cuba to attack the Spanish regime there. It was captured by the Spanish, who wanted to try the men onboard (many of whom were American and British citizens) as pirates and execute them. The Spanish executed 53 of the men but stopped when the British government demanded it when HMS Niobe, arrived at the city of Santiago where the executions were taking place. The commander of the ship, Sir Lambton Loraine, immediately ordered the Spanish to cease the executions. Loraine even went so far as to threaten to bombard the city if his demands were not met. Spain relented and halted the executions, sparing the surviving crew of the Virginius.

One of the thing mentioned in the clip is that at the time of the affair, the Spanish ironclad Arapiles was in Brooklyn, New York for repairs that lasted from May to January 1874, Being a more modern ironclad, the United States Navy had no warship in its inventory capable of engaging it. This led to the sickening realization that if war had broken out, the Spanish warship could have begun shelling New York City with impunity, the US Navy powerless to stop it. Had Spain sent its fleet to battle, the US Navy would be fighting an enemy with a larger number of more advanced ships. The US Navy was surpassed by Spain both in quality and quantity. To make matters worse, the few warships the United States had were incapable of fighting abroad. The available ironclads were originally designed for operation in coastal areas and on rivers. They could hardly make the 100 mile journey to Cuba much less sail to Spain from across the Atlantic.

But what if there was no peaceful settlement and war broke out between the United States and Spain in 1873.

What if the Disraeli government decides to go a couple steps further and issues an ultimatum, perhaps alone, perhaps jointly with the United States, insisting on mediating between Spain and the Cuban rebels?

I'm presuming Spain will have to refuse on honor grounds and the British can obliterate the Spanish fleet around Cuba, land marines, link up with the Cuban rebels, and voila, Cuba has slavery abolished 13 years early and independence 25 years early.

I'm assuming Britain wouldn't be trying to seize Cuba for itself and adding more political complications with the Cubans, US, and Latin American republics.

But, if Disraeli's already worked up the jingo spirit against the old love to hate 'em whipping boy enemy of Spain, there is plenty of scope elsewhere in the global Spanish empire for British acquisitiveness.

In the Caribbean, there's Puerto Rico. But, I suspect that's best left alone, either made independent or left in the hands of Spain (although made to abolish slavery if that hadn't been done), since American republics would get irritated and it adds nothing Britain doesn't already have from its numerous other Caribbean bases.

However, in the Pacific, the British could lay claim to the Philippines and the whole of the Spanish East Indies, including, Palau, the Caroline and Marianas islands. This supplements Britains trade position around China and Japan, adding to the string of colonies and concessions from Shanghai to Hong Kong to Malaya, Borneo and Singapore, Lower Burma, and the Antipodes.

In Africa, Britain can grab Fernando Poo and Rio Muni and any forts on the southern Moroccan coast of Rio Muni.

If greedy, Britain could try for the Canaries, or Minorca again, but that's really rubbing it in and giving Spain another Gibraltar or Alsace-Lorraine like grievance, in addition to seeming a bit uncontrollably grabby to France and the rest of the continent. But Disraeli and the Royal Navy can do it.

What are the global, European and British, American, and Spanish domestic consequences from there?

  Interesting scenario but according to the List_of_United_Kingdom_general_elections#19th_century Gladstone was in power in 1873 and he was generally bitterly opposed to further colonies, on both morale and economic grounds.  True there was a general election in early 1874 which saw Disraeli and the Tories gain power, although only with a 49 seat majority.

  If it did happen then Britain could probably secure an independent Cuba, especially given the disparity in strength and that Spain was deep in the 3rd Carlist War.  This would cause tension with the US given the latter's designs in the region but not greatly so I suspect.  The issue might be if there are close enough links established that there is an appeal to the UK in the event of a later US intervention for some aim.

  I couldn't really see a wider conflict as Britain would only really be interested in avenging the killing of Britons and achieving the ending of slavery in Cuba - which might be an incentive for Gladstone.to intervene.  Its possible that the spreading news of the conflict prompts some clashes elsewhere but I doubt that any significant gains elsewhere.  Might see some minor act of initiative seeing an island in the Pacific seized but that might even be returned in the peace settlement.  Nothing major like the Philippines.

  In terms of Puerto Rico I did read once that it was pretty loyal to Spain so it was ironic that the US insisted on annexing it.  However the wiki page for this year mentions that

1873 March 22 – Emancipation Day for Puerto Rico: Slaves are freed (with a few exceptions).

  A defeat like this might prompt Spain to get its act together and end the Carlist war or make it longer lasting with each faction blaming the others for the disaster.  Doubt it would make much difference to the politics in Europe.  Could see some hotheads spouting anti-British rhetoric but very unlikely to do anything as Britain won't have taken a base there and has ended slavery which will only upset the still marginalized defeated south.

  Steve

[stevep]

Dec 13, 2021 2:07:23 GMT TheRomanSlayer said:

A British Philippines by the 1870s would become an extension of British Malaya, but with a massive Catholic population that they're dealing with, I'm not sure if the Brits would be able to stomach another potential Catholic rebellion, like the situation in Ireland. However, America had the Monroe Doctrine to enforce, which would make British Cuba a bit more difficult to achieve. Perhaps the British would come to an agreement with the US, where the latter could seize control of Spain's remaining American colonies, while Britain would seize its remaining Asian colonies.

One other thing though: by including the formerly Spanish East Indies into British Malaya, you'd technically have a delicate balance of power between the Christian and Muslim communities there, but there is also the Brooke dynasty of Sarawak to consider as well. Perhaps British East Indies would be split apart in a different way, with Brooke controlling Sarawak and the Christian dominated areas of the Philippines, while the Sultan of Sulu would rule Sabah, its traditional holdings in Sulu Island, and the areas of the Philippines that we call IOTL the Autonomous Region of Muslim Mindanao.

It might have been too late to turn the Christian areas of the Philippines and the Brooke Dynasty's State of Sarawak into another Dominion within the British Empire, but it might become an autonomous client state within said empire. Culturally speaking, Filipinos would learn how to speak English decades early, but the whole concept of benevolent assimilation would have played out differently, or it wouldn't happen at all. The only thing that's left is that how will this affect the later Anglo-Japanese Alliance, if Japan could not expand anywhere else except for Korea and Taiwan.

  TRS

  As I said in my reply to raharris1973, IF war occurred I doubt it would go beyond Cuba or that would end up as anything other than an independent and slave free Cuba.  Possibility of clashes of influence between Britain and the US later on as both seek to have friendly governments here but that's about it.

  Although one thought that just occurred.  With Cuba independent of Spain there's probably no excuse for the US to go to war with Spain and hence its doubtful that the Philippines would end up conquered  by the US, nor Guam and Wake.  Whether their still Spanish if/when a WWI type conflict occurs or Spain has possibly sold those possessions to someone else - Germany, France, the US??  If not and depending on how things develop could see them come under the control of Japan at some point.

  I can't really see Britain going for a major conquest like the Philippines, especially under Gladstone and probably not really under Disraeli either.  There's not enough to make it worthwhile and its too big for an enterprising local commander to gain control of.  Only exception I can think of - which one of our Filipino members would know better - would be if there was a significant independence movement in the islands in 1873-74 that was inspired or aided to success by Britain.

  Steve

[American hist]

Dec 12, 2021 23:35:36 GMT raharris1973 said:

I am converting this PoD, that is often used for getting an early Spanish-American War, in 1873, to get an Anglo-Spanish War instead.

My reasoning is simple. I've learned the affair of rogue Spanish executions involved British citizens as well as American, and the Royal Navy was involved in halting the incident. Furthermore, unlike the Americans, who may well have been behind the Spanish in the technology of their available ocean-going ironclad ships, the Royal Navy would be a shoo-in to defeat the Spanish fleet anywhere around the globe. Plus the British didn't like slavery and this could speed things along.

Here's some background:

The Virginius affair which was a diplomatic dispute that occurred from October 1873 to February 1875 between the United States, the United Kingdom, and Spain (then in control of Cuba), during the Ten Years' War. Virginius was a fast American ship hired by Cuban insurrectionists to land men and munitions in Cuba to attack the Spanish regime there. It was captured by the Spanish, who wanted to try the men onboard (many of whom were American and British citizens) as pirates and execute them. The Spanish executed 53 of the men but stopped when the British government demanded it when HMS Niobe, arrived at the city of Santiago where the executions were taking place. The commander of the ship, Sir Lambton Loraine, immediately ordered the Spanish to cease the executions. Loraine even went so far as to threaten to bombard the city if his demands were not met. Spain relented and halted the executions, sparing the surviving crew of the Virginius.

One of the thing mentioned in the clip is that at the time of the affair, the Spanish ironclad Arapiles was in Brooklyn, New York for repairs that lasted from May to January 1874, Being a more modern ironclad, the United States Navy had no warship in its inventory capable of engaging it. This led to the sickening realization that if war had broken out, the Spanish warship could have begun shelling New York City with impunity, the US Navy powerless to stop it. Had Spain sent its fleet to battle, the US Navy would be fighting an enemy with a larger number of more advanced ships. The US Navy was surpassed by Spain both in quality and quantity. To make matters worse, the few warships the United States had were incapable of fighting abroad. The available ironclads were originally designed for operation in coastal areas and on rivers. They could hardly make the 100 mile journey to Cuba much less sail to Spain from across the Atlantic.

But what if there was no peaceful settlement and war broke out between the United States and Spain in 1873.

What if the Disraeli government decides to go a couple steps further and issues an ultimatum, perhaps alone, perhaps jointly with the United States, insisting on mediating between Spain and the Cuban rebels?

I'm presuming Spain will have to refuse on honor grounds and the British can obliterate the Spanish fleet around Cuba, land marines, link up with the Cuban rebels, and voila, Cuba has slavery abolished 13 years early and independence 25 years early.

I'm assuming Britain wouldn't be trying to seize Cuba for itself and adding more political complications with the Cubans, US, and Latin American republics.

But, if Disraeli's already worked up the jingo spirit against the old love to hate 'em whipping boy enemy of Spain, there is plenty of scope elsewhere in the global Spanish empire for British acquisitiveness.

In the Caribbean, there's Puerto Rico. But, I suspect that's best left alone, either made independent or left in the hands of Spain (although made to abolish slavery if that hadn't been done), since American republics would get irritated and it adds nothing Britain doesn't already have from its numerous other Caribbean bases.

However, in the Pacific, the British could lay claim to the Philippines and the whole of the Spanish East Indies, including, Palau, the Caroline and Marianas islands. This supplements Britains trade position around China and Japan, adding to the string of colonies and concessions from Shanghai to Hong Kong to Malaya, Borneo and Singapore, Lower Burma, and the Antipodes.

In Africa, Britain can grab Fernando Poo and Rio Muni and any forts on the southern Moroccan coast of Rio Muni.

If greedy, Britain could try for the Canaries, or Minorca again, but that's really rubbing it in and giving Spain another Gibraltar or Alsace-Lorraine like grievance, in addition to seeming a bit uncontrollably grabby to France and the rest of the continent. But Disraeli and the Royal Navy can do it.

What are the global, European and British, American, and Spanish domestic consequences from there?

[American hist]

In a Civil War pod that would be a good timeline if they Confederates were the ones to have this affair happened to them.

[raharris1973]

Dec 13, 2021 2:07:23 GMT TheRomanSlayer said:

A British Philippines by the 1870s would become an extension of British Malaya, but with a massive Catholic population that they're dealing with, I'm not sure if the Brits would be able to stomach another potential Catholic rebellion, like the situation in Ireland.

Well the British were no strangers to religiously different populations by this point, with probably over 100 million Hindu and Muslim subjects too. I think the Catholicism alone should not be comparably stressful for the British like the Irish issue, because the Filipino Catholics on the other side of the world won't be living side-by-side with more than a handful of Protestant (British administrators, soldiers, sailors, merchants), unlike the Catholic Irish in regular and tense contact Protestant middle and upper class and landlord people in Ireland and the UK who remind them of their social and national subordination all the time.

Dec 13, 2021 2:07:23 GMT TheRomanSlayer said:

However, America had the Monroe Doctrine to enforce, which would make British Cuba a bit more difficult to achieve.

Dec 13, 2021 2:07:23 GMT TheRomanSlayer said:

However, America had the Monroe Doctrine to enforce, which would make British Cuba a bit more difficult to achieve.

Yeah, as I mentioned in the OP, I don't think Britain will have an ambition to annex Cuba for themselves. That is asking for trouble on two levels. Not just irritating the US with its Monroe Doctrine beliefs, but the Cubans who are in the middle of an independence war. I could see the British insisting on Cuban independence though and free trade and non-absorption into the US, not being absorbed into a customs union inside the US tariff walls though. Territorial acquisitions, if sought, would more likely be from the Spanish Pacific or Africa.

Dec 13, 2021 2:07:23 GMT TheRomanSlayer said:

One other thing though: by including the formerly Spanish East Indies into British Malaya, you'd technically have a delicate balance of power between the Christian and Muslim communities there, but there is also the Brooke dynasty of Sarawak to consider as well. Perhaps British East Indies would be split apart in a different way, with Brooke controlling Sarawak and the Christian dominated areas of the Philippines, while the Sultan of Sulu would rule Sabah, its traditional holdings in Sulu Island, and the areas of the Philippines that we call IOTL the Autonomous Region of Muslim Mindanao.

It might have been too late to turn the Christian areas of the Philippines and the Brooke Dynasty's State of Sarawak into another Dominion within the British Empire, but it might become an autonomous client state within said empire. Culturally speaking, Filipinos would learn how to speak English decades early, but the whole concept of benevolent assimilation would have played out differently, or it wouldn't happen at all. The only thing that's left is that how will this affect the later Anglo-Japanese Alliance, if Japan could not expand anywhere else except for Korea and Taiwan.

Very interesting idea, I hadn't that about all that!

[raharris1973]

Dec 13, 2021 12:00:10 GMT miletus12 said:

I have a series of questions.

1. Why would the British stir up trouble in the Caribbean and invite a coalition war against them?

Who is going to participate in that 'coalition', what will they expect to get, and why will they think it wise to stick their neck out?

Dec 13, 2021 12:00:10 GMT miletus12 said:

There is France, Spain and Holland in the Caribbean and one also remembers a very hostile United States. It has been six years since a the British and French engaged in economic warfare against the Americans by violating a blockade the Americans established against the rebel Confederacy. Many British, French and Spanish blockade runners were seized with British, Spanish and French citizens killed in the process. One of the remaining sore points in addition was the predations of British supported Confederate pirates. CSS Alabama was not exactly crewed by "southerners". She was "British".

So France, Holland, and the US decide to take Spain's side? Um, sorry no. This isn't the American revolution 1770s-1780s.

France, as of 1873 is rather busy paying off reparations to get the last Prussian soldiers out of its country. Remember the Prussians were there because they finished beating up the French just two years earlier in the Franco-Prussian war. The French were licking their wounds, and if looking to fight anyone post-recovery it was the Germans post-recovery, it wasn't the British in the Caribbean to make some random point.

The Netherlands after the Napoleonic wars tended to keep its head down and be neutralist, knowing it had shrunk to lesser power leagues, just beating up on native Indonesians. They didn't intervene in the Boer War, ticked off as they were about it, why intervene in favor of the Spanish, a historic enemy more often than not, in Cuba.

The US had its sore points with Britain and it certainly wouldn't want any new colonial establishments by Britain in the Caribbean, but why side with Spain, who also supported blockade runners and was just massacring Americans along with British on the Virginius, against the British who are avenging the Virginius, especially as this is one year *after* the Alabama Claims have been paid?

[raharris1973]

Dec 13, 2021 12:00:10 GMT miletus12 said:

2. Russia. American ally during the same war. Always looking to make trouble.

Russia, clearly knew her limits in the Western Hemisphere, hence why she sold Alaska five years before.

Dec 13, 2021 12:00:10 GMT miletus12 said:

Cuba. The Ten Years War was mounted by sugar oligarchs who wanted to change the nature of slavery in Cuba. The racial component was to reduce reliance on Africans now that there was teeth in the anti-piracy patrols, and shift over to the importation of Chinese indentured labor. The Americans and the British were letting that human trafficking in slavery happen willy nilly.

What does that have to do with the price of eggs? IE, what does that have to do with whether or not Britain wants to punish Spain aggressively for the Virginius crew massacres or not, and possibly use it as a pretext to seize Spanish territories elsewhere in the world?

Dec 13, 2021 12:00:10 GMT miletus12 said:

4. Speaking of Americans... the Cuban sugar interests who instigated the Cuban Revolution were backed financially and politically by their American co-investors and not so much by the British who had much less financial stake in the Cuban economy. The "pirates" of the Virginius affair were aboard a "Confederate blockade runner" built in Glasgow, but captured by the United States during their civil war. Sold off in a prize court, she was purchased and placed into American merchant marine service. John F. Patterson, acting as agent for the Cuban rebel Manuel Quesada and his American backers, Marshall and J. Roberts. There is little British involvement at that juncture, however one notes the USN was covering the SS Virginius' runs to Cuba to aid the rebels. This was exactly the shenanigans the British in the Caribbean pulled against the United States between 1862 and 1865, so it might be a form of irony?

Those are interesting details.  Thanks!

Dec 13, 2021 12:00:10 GMT miletus12 said:

3. How do the Philippine Islands become involved and what does France think about it, since they are kind of active in the South China Sea?

They would only become involved if Britain chooses to involve them as an opportunistic land grab to create another colony, protectorate or client state that they see as advantageous in the Far East.

France probably isn't altogether happy.  They are active in Indochina, especially southern Indochina at this time, but for reasons stated earlier, aren't in a position to fight about anything.  Maybe this would encourage them to speed up their conquest process in Indochina and speed up putting Jules Ferry into power.

[raharris1973]

Dec 13, 2021 19:03:31 GMT stevep said:

Interesting scenario but according to the List_of_United_Kingdom_general_elections#19th_century Gladstone was in power in 1873 and he was generally bitterly opposed to further colonies, on both morale and economic grounds.  True there was a general election in early 1874 which saw Disraeli and the Tories gain power, although only with a 49 seat majority.

Great catch. Thanks for searching out this detail.

Yes, I would say that temperamentally and in principle, Gladstone is less disposed to war and political reliance on jingoistic reactions.

At the same time, British liberals have just the same tradition of Tories as being against Spanish oppression, they further have the idea of sympathy for rebelling foreign underdogs, and Gladstone was anti-Catholic enough he somewhat favored Bismarck's kulturkampf at first. I imagine he could work himself up into a self-righteous Wilsonian lather about dastardly oppressive, inquisitorial Papist Spanish massacres of British seamen without due process.

Dec 13, 2021 19:03:31 GMT stevep said:

If it did happen then Britain could probably secure an independent Cuba, especially given the disparity in strength and that Spain was deep in the 3rd Carlist War.  This would cause tension with the US given the latter's designs in the region but not greatly so I suspect.  The issue might be if there are close enough links established that there is an appeal to the UK in the event of a later US intervention for some aim.

I also think tension with the US could be managed on this. I think Grant's common sense, and Secretary of State Hamilton Fish's cautious approach, plus the important fact the arbitration of the Alabama Claims had been completed and accepted a year earlier in 1872, would help alot.

The Americans may quietly ask the British to 'slow down' a little and try to participate as separate but equal members of an anti-Spanish coalition to free Cuba, wanting to show they are strong enough to punish Spain and help Cuba, knowing secretly that British participation makes Spain's defeat inevitable and Spain's fleet totally harmless, but not having to admit openly it is the decidedly junior partner to Britain.

Dec 13, 2021 19:03:31 GMT stevep said:

I couldn't really see a wider conflict as Britain would only really be interested in avenging the killing of Britons and achieving the ending of slavery in Cuba - which might be an incentive for Gladstone.to intervene.  Its possible that the spreading news of the conflict prompts some clashes elsewhere but I doubt that any significant gains elsewhere.  Might see some minor act of initiative seeing an island in the Pacific seized but that might even be returned in the peace settlement.  Nothing major like the Philippines.

Yes, I think Gladstone would be as anti-slavery as anyone, and anyone, either he or Disraeli, would add emancipation on as moral icing on the cake if they are choosing already to do a war of retribution or muscle-flexing or market opening or liberation.

You may very well be right about the action being limited to Cuba and Cuba alone. I speculated on the Pacific mainly because it just makes things more different and potentially more interesting, and to supply an additional acquisitive motive.

Dec 13, 2021 19:03:31 GMT stevep said:

In terms of Puerto Rico I did read once that it was pretty loyal to Spain so it was ironic that the US insisted on annexing it.  However the wiki page for this year mentions that

1873 March 22 – Emancipation Day for Puerto Rico: Slaves are freed (with a few exceptions).

As you say, the action may be limited to Cuba and Cuba alone. And slavery emancipation, with the law you cite, wouldn't provide a *genuine* excuse for intervening, except I guess to get rid of the exceptions. However, there was a Puerto Rican independence movement, with its own leaders in exile, mainly in New York. And the British, and if they are involved the Americans, may decide they are saving themselves future trouble by ousting the Spanish and making Puerto Rico an independent Republic. The rationale could be, "why risk having a revolutionary struggle later, so close to the Virgin Islands, and risk having a Virginius incident all over again in a decade?"

Dec 13, 2021 19:03:31 GMT stevep said:

A defeat like this might prompt Spain to get its act together and end the Carlist war or make it longer lasting with each faction blaming the others for the disaster.  Doubt it would make much difference to the politics in Europe.  Could see some hotheads spouting anti-British rhetoric but very unlikely to do anything as Britain won't have taken a base there and has ended slavery which will only upset the still marginalized defeated south.

  Steve

Maybe Spain could go through a revitalization.

I have a bad feeling however that Carlist and other reactionary movements in Spain would be able to exploit a British war of anti-Spanish colonial despoliation best. The Carlists would try to make Spanish liberals suffer for their ideological association with with the liberal British government and liberal America. The Carlists would add to their rallying cries, "Spaniards, rise with us, be authentic patriots, fudge the English and Americans, fudge their liberal democracy, fudge their Protestantism and fremasonry!"

Dec 13, 2021 19:16:52 GMT stevep said:

Although one thought that just occurred.  With Cuba independent of Spain there's probably no excuse for the US to go to war with Spain and hence its doubtful that the Philippines would end up conquered  by the US, nor Guam and Wake.  Whether their still Spanish if/when a WWI type conflict occurs or Spain has possibly sold those possessions to someone else - Germany, France, the US??  If not and depending on how things develop could see them come under the control of Japan at some point.

Agree- with Cuba (or Cuba and other parts of the Spanish empire) taken out of Spanish hands in the 1870s, there's no excuse for the 1890s Spanish-American war.

If Spain doesn't sell their possessions to another power, I can imagine Spain holding on to Puerto Rico, Guam and Micronesia into the 20th century, but the Philippines would successfully rebel.

Spain might sell to Germany or Japan, with Micronesia most likely to be bought and sold.

Dec 13, 2021 19:16:52 GMT stevep said:

  I can't really see Britain going for a major conquest like the Philippines, especially under Gladstone and probably not really under Disraeli either.  There's not enough to make it worthwhile and its too big for an enterprising local commander to gain control of.  Only exception I can think of - which one of our Filipino members would know better - would be if there was a significant independence movement in the islands in 1873-74 that was inspired or aided to success by Britain.

  Steve

There was a short-lived revolt at Cavite in 1872, but it was put down quickly. It was not followed up by a continuous movement though until the propaganda movement of Filipino exiles in Europe began pamphleteering, and a continuous armed insurgent movement only began with Bonifacio's Katipunan movement from 1892. So there was not something for the British to piggy back on right there in 1873. Now seeing Britain/America free Cuba may bring people out of the woodwork quickly, but not necessarily enough to make Gladstone and the Admiralty start thinking of a campaign from scratch if they weren't already thinking on those lines.

[miletus12]

Jan 2, 2022 21:52:30 GMT raharris1973 said:

Who is going to participate in that 'coalition', what will they expect to get, and why will they think it wise to stick their neck out?

Balance of power. Britain was historically reluctant to stir up trouble in areas where she was going to lose and lose badly.

Jan 2, 2022 21:52:30 GMT raharris1973 said:

So France, Holland, and the US decide to take Spain's side? Um, sorry no. This isn't the American revolution 1770s-1780s.

Napoleon III was the author of the Invasion scare of 1860.

Jan 2, 2022 21:58:03 GMT raharris1973 said:

What does that have to do with the price of eggs? IE, what does that have to do with whether or not Britain wants to punish Spain aggressively for the Virginius crew massacres or not, and possibly use it as a pretext to seize Spanish territories elsewhere in the world?

It has to do with the price of sugar and the safety of Canada.

Jan 2, 2022 21:58:03 GMT raharris1973 said:

They would only become involved if Britain chooses to involve them as an opportunistic land grab to create another colony, protectorate or client state that they see as advantageous in the Far East.

This goes into tea leaf reading, but the British were courting Japan at the time to stop Russia in China. The Philippine Islands was not taken as a part of this equation. The British poured a fortune into Singapore. If the Americans had poured similar effort into Manila Bay, the Japanese would have not have gotten as far as they did. The Japanese had trouble with the feeble American defenses. (More trouble than they had against the British in Malaya.). The take, as I see it, is that if the British had applied their Singapore Bastion Defense to Manila, then the Japanese might have been stopped by geography.

France probably isn't altogether happy.  They are active in Indochina, especially southern Indochina at this time, but for reasons stated earlier, aren't in a position to fight about anything.  Maybe this would encourage them to speed up their conquest process in Indochina and speed up putting Jules Ferry into power.

They were not as weak as presumed. In the South China sea at the time Amédée Courbet was demonstrating that French torpedo boats were the correct answer to British or Chinese cruisers.

[stevep]

Dec 14, 2021 1:13:01 GMT American hist said:

Dec 12, 2021 23:35:36 GMT raharris1973 said:

I am converting this PoD, that is often used for getting an early Spanish-American War, in 1873, to get an Anglo-Spanish War instead.

My reasoning is simple. I've learned the affair of rogue Spanish executions involved British citizens as well as American, and the Royal Navy was involved in halting the incident. Furthermore, unlike the Americans, who may well have been behind the Spanish in the technology of their available ocean-going ironclad ships, the Royal Navy would be a shoo-in to defeat the Spanish fleet anywhere around the globe. Plus the British didn't like slavery and this could speed things along.

Here's some background:
What if the Disraeli government decides to go a couple steps further and issues an ultimatum, perhaps alone, perhaps jointly with the United States, insisting on mediating between Spain and the Cuban rebels?

I'm presuming Spain will have to refuse on honor grounds and the British can obliterate the Spanish fleet around Cuba, land marines, link up with the Cuban rebels, and voila, Cuba has slavery abolished 13 years early and independence 25 years early.

I'm assuming Britain wouldn't be trying to seize Cuba for itself and adding more political complications with the Cubans, US, and Latin American republics.

But, if Disraeli's already worked up the jingo spirit against the old love to hate 'em whipping boy enemy of Spain, there is plenty of scope elsewhere in the global Spanish empire for British acquisitiveness.

In the Caribbean, there's Puerto Rico. But, I suspect that's best left alone, either made independent or left in the hands of Spain (although made to abolish slavery if that hadn't been done), since American republics would get irritated and it adds nothing Britain doesn't already have from its numerous other Caribbean bases.

However, in the Pacific, the British could lay claim to the Philippines and the whole of the Spanish East Indies, including, Palau, the Caroline and Marianas islands. This supplements Britains trade position around China and Japan, adding to the string of colonies and concessions from Shanghai to Hong Kong to Malaya, Borneo and Singapore, Lower Burma, and the Antipodes.

In Africa, Britain can grab Fernando Poo and Rio Muni and any forts on the southern Moroccan coast of Rio Muni.

If greedy, Britain could try for the Canaries, or Minorca again, but that's really rubbing it in and giving Spain another Gibraltar or Alsace-Lorraine like grievance, in addition to seeming a bit uncontrollably grabby to France and the rest of the continent. But Disraeli and the Royal Navy can do it.

What are the global, European and British, American, and Spanish domestic consequences from there?

  American hist,

  Sorry for the late response but missed this earlier and its just been raised by raharris1973, comments. 

  I can't see Britain seeking to establish a colonial relationship here as it has no real territorial advantages.  Britain already has plenty of bases in the region and at the time the general opinion is against further expense colonies.  Plus while the US is still very much a 2nd rank power militarily it would cause tension with Washington because of its own imperial designs in the region aka the Monroe doctrine.  Ditto with territory further afield.  Possibly just areas like Fernando Poo if they might be useful for helping in the suppressing of the slave trade.

  Also by this time Spain is a minor power that hasn't been a significant player since the Napoleonic invasion, which of course meant that the last time Britain and Spain were involved in a war they were allies.  Even Disraeli and his Tories were caught up in the free trade/liassez faire delusion, albeit to a lesser degree than the Liberals.  There's nothing really to display Spain as a whipping boy.  Furthermore since Spain is in civil war at the moment the attitude from London would be that this is a decision by a local official and nothing to do with the assorted factions in Spain so their only really interesting in bringing the people in Cuba responsible to justice.

  Steve