Fidel Castro is dead

TrollfaceDeux · Nov 27, 2016

Lendarios said:
sure bro, tell me more about this outstanding citizen

Fulgencio Batista - Wikipedia

Read this

"At the beginning of 1959 United States companies owned about 40 percent of the Cuban sugar lands—almost all the cattle ranches—90 percent of the mines and mineral concessions—80 percent of the utilities—practically all the oil industry—and supplied two-thirds of Cuba's imports."

Nope, not a colony, at all.

Colonizing require settlement....like for instance..... Israel colonizing east Palestine.

El lendariooo. El Paso dumb dumb.

You know it would be amazing if they did colonize. It would be like south Africa. apartheid. Great agriculture output and diverse economy. Now it is shit. White Africans have no faith in black Africans. Done done.

Lithose · Nov 27, 2016

Big Phoenix said:
Looks like he learned well. Talks about being forced to give up to the US, happily forced cubans to give up their land to him.

Did Americans move the Cuba and start settling it? No.

Lend, of course, leaves out a lot of history--the reason we wanted the amendment was because that was already our third (Sizable) excursion into the country due to instability and European powers affecting it. It should be noted, all of these were ASKED for by the Cuban people after decades of brutal subjugation. America left each time and wished our happy neighbors well--while private American businesses invested MILLIONS into Cuba (Which is what made us accept invitations back to keep the peace while Democracy settled in.) When we were about to leave the last time, we wanted the amendment because we saw Spain and other European powers were still extremely interested in the island thanks to its strategic naval value so close to the U.S. We could have EASILY forced them to give it to us--remember, we were the only security on their little shit hole, they were reliant on us completely to provide stability and keep their enemies away.

However, we didn't. We offered them an extremely lucrative sugar contract as a trade for it--and we accepted one base instead of 4 like promised, all for an amendment that was effectively saying we'd be able to ensure Cubans would be the one's who would decide their destiny's, not outside powers (Horrifying I know--such evil evil dictators we are.)

Our actions were so benevolent (Even if we were, yes, motivated by protecting previous investments)--that its almost comical. The fact that someone like Castro can come along and twist history SO much, and people like Lend believe it without no skepticism? Really does prove Kissinger correct. Anytime a stronger person helps a weaker, it can be made to look like the stronger person is a bully by someone wishing for their own power. Given that reality of the human condition? There is no reason to shy away for ensuring we at least get control of the people we try to help. Which has guided our foreign policy right up until the Arab spring.

Palum · Nov 27, 2016

Doesn't that make George Soros a colonial empire?

Lendarios · Nov 27, 2016

lol sure,

"In a manner that antagonized the Cuban people, the U.S. government used its influence to advance the interests of and increase the profits of the private American companies, which "dominated the island's economy".[36]As a symbol of this relationship, ITT Corporation, an American-owned multinational telephone company, presented Batista with a Golden Telephone, as an "expression of gratitude" for the "excessive telephone rate increase" that Batista granted at the urging of the U.S. government.[36]"

Do you know who said that? John F kennedy
"Earl T. Smith, former U.S. Ambassador to Cuba, testified to the U.S. Senate in 1960 that, "Until Castro, the U.S. was so overwhelmingly influential in Cuba that the American ambassador was the second most important man, sometimes even more important than the Cuban president."[47] In addition, nearly "all aid" from the U.S. to Batista's government was in the "form of weapons assistance", which "merely strengthened the Batista dictatorship" and "completely failed to advance the economic welfare of the Cuban people".[36] Such actions later "enabled Castro and the Communists to encourage the growing belief that America was indifferent to Cuban aspirations for a decent life."[36]"

Yeah

Lithose , tell me more how the cuban people turn their back on their 'friends" of the north.

Palum · Nov 27, 2016

Looks like it's worked out great for you people. Get the fuck out then.

Lendarios · Nov 27, 2016

Lithose said:
Lend, of course, leaves out a lot of history--the reason we wanted the amendment was because that was already our third (Sizable) excursion into the country due to instability and European powers affecting it. It should be noted, all of these were ASKED for by the Cuban people after decades of brutal subjugation. America left each time and wished our happy neighbors well--while private American businesses invested MILLIONS into Cuba (Which is what made us accept invitations back to keep the peace while Democracy settled in.) When we were about to leave the last time, we wanted the amendment because we saw Spain and other European powers were still extremely interested in the island thanks to its strategic naval value so close to the U.S. We could have EASILY forced them to give it to us--remember, we were the only security on their little shit hole, they were reliant on us completely to provide stability and keep their enemies away.

However, we didn't. We offered them an extremely lucrative sugar contract as a trade for it--and we accepted one base instead of 4 like promised, all for an amendment that was effectively saying we'd be able to ensure Cubans would be the one's who would decide their destiny's, not outside powers (Horrifying I know--such evil evil dictators we are.)

Our actions were so benevolent (Even if we were, yes, motivated by protecting previous investments)--that its almost comical. The fact that someone like Castro can come along and twist history SO much, and people like Lend believe it without no skepticism? Really does prove Kissinger correct. Anytime a stronger person helps a weaker, it can be made to look like the stronger person is a bully by someone wishing for their own power. Given that reality of the human condition? There is no reason to shy away for ensuring we at least get control of the people we try to help. Which has guided our foreign policy right up until the Arab spring.

You know the reason there were rebellions after 1904, was because the existence of the Plat Amendment right.

This image from the times can help you see it better

Lithose · Nov 27, 2016

Lendarios said:
sure bro, tell me more about this outstanding citizen

Fulgencio Batista - Wikipedia

Read this

"At the beginning of 1959 United States companies owned about 40 percent of the Cuban sugar lands—almost all the cattle ranches—90 percent of the mines and mineral concessions—80 percent of the utilities—practically all the oil industry—and supplied two-thirds of Cuba's imports."

Nope, not a colony, at all.

I'm going to use this example to show you how fucking dumb you are--and I want you to take it to heart. This little blurb? Is from JFK--here is it in context.

Mr. Nixon could not see then what should have been obvious - and which should have been even more obvious when he made his ill-fated Latin American trip in 1958 - that unless the Cuban people, with our help, made substantial economic progress, trouble was on its way. If this is the kind of experience Mr. Nixon claims entitles him to be President, then I would say that the American people cannot afford many more such experiences.

Secondly, in a manner certain to antagonize the Cuban people, we used the influence of our Government to advance the interests of and increase the profits of the private American companies, which dominated the island's economy. At the beginning of 1959 U.S. companies owned about 40 percent of the Cuban sugar lands - almost all the cattle ranches - 90 percent of the mines and mineral concessions - 80 percent of the utilities - and practically all the oil industry - and supplied two-thirds of Cuba's imports.

Of course, our private investment did much to help Cuba. But our action too often gave the impression that this country was more interested in taking money from the Cuban people than in helping them build a strong and diversified economy of their own.

The speech was illustrating how private investment, while it did make the Cuban people richer--needed to be viewed in the light of a corrupt government, and how America was set to do more to ensure equality among the Cuban people. However, another tyrant preyed upon people only looking at flashy numbers and not the actual effects of how expertise and investment which lead to those numbers was the thing providing Cubans with jobs, human capital and the start of a middle class life that they were on the way to before Castro took power. He was effectively saying Cuba had just started going in a bad direction and we reacted too slowly to it (But that bad direction was from YOUR OWN corrupt government), but the LOOKS were more important than the facts, and those looks? Especially how audacious the golden telephone? Were terrible and easily taken advantage of.

In other words you're highlighting a speech where an American president effectively said that people only pay attention to numbers dictators toss out there without context, and we should be mindful of that--but also we should have done more to keep your elections free and open, as well as doing more to help Cuba (As we always have--because the U.S. was constantly helping you). But again, this makes us look terrible to you...somehow? Because the dude who killed thousands, and kept his people in squalor all due to the fear he pimped about some boogey man Americans that were actually raising the QoL in Cuba by every conceivable metric through private investment, was actually a 'good man' by comparison to the Presidents who were looking to help Cuba?

Okay.

Adebisi · Nov 27, 2016

I fucked on the beach in Varadero

Communist beach sex rules!

Lendarios · Nov 27, 2016

iannis said:
Cuba never rose to the level of an American colony.

Technically you can say that since it was a Spanish colony, we inherited it as such. But that was never the American goal or the understanding.

After the opening of the island to world trade in 1818, trade agreements began to replace Spanish commercial connections. In 1820 Thomas Jefferson thought Cuba is "the most interesting addition which could ever be made to our system of States" and told Secretary of War John C. Calhoun that the United States "ought, at the first possible opportunity, to take Cuba."[9] In a letter to the U.S. Minister to Spain Hugh Nelson, Secretary of State John Quincy Adams described the likelihood of U.S. "annexation of Cuba" within half a century despite obstacles: "But there are laws of political as well as of physical gravitation; and if an apple severed by the tempest from its native tree cannot choose but fall to the ground, Cuba, forcibly disjoined from its own unnatural connection with Spain, and incapable of self support, can gravitate only towards the North American Union, which by the same law of nature cannot cast her off from its bosom."[10] In 1854 a secret proposal known as the Ostend Manifesto was devised by U.S. diplomats, interested in adding a slave state to the Union. The Manifesto proposed buying Cuba from Spain for $130 million. If Spain were to reject the offer, the Manifesto implied that, in the name of Manifest Destiny, war would be necessary. When the plans became public, because of one author's vocal enthusiasm for the plan,[11] the manifesto caused a scandal, and was rejected, in part because of objections from anti-slavery campaigners.[12]

It is not like I am making this shit up, here are actual speeches of the American leaders at the time.

That Castro created a peasant revolt against the aristocracy (who probably deserved to have all their plantations confiscated) and used imperial overlord ship to justify it does not mean that the American Congress actually considered Cuba to be a colony. Cuba was far less than a colony. Colony implies protections and considerations which we never have had any least interest in imparting to cuba or cubans.

The owners, by a large number were actually US companies, as I already pointed out.

iannis · Nov 27, 2016

That's still not a colony. That's a nation being exploited by private interests. Shit, I honestly don't claim otherwise. That's an economic vassal. Annexation would be a REMARKABLY good thing for Cuba. But there's no way that Americans want to invest in full annexation. Cuba will remain either a nation in poverty, or an economic vassal. That's why I think that coming to some territorial type of understanding would be an improvement in their general situation. I'm sure it fucking rankles national pride, but there is simply no way that cuba can fight a war with any two states -- much less all fifty of them -- and do anything except get slaughtered. So an agreement about money and an agreement about government, an understanding of shared responsibilities... there is a stability of not letting the bankers be the ones making the rules.

Not all colonies are economic vassals, not all economic vassals are colonies. The two things can overlap, but they do not describe the same relationship.

Castro used the wrong word for a very specific reason.

Think of it this way, lend. If Cuba actually HAD been an American colony... there's simply no way that he would have been allowed to take the island. We wouldn't have 2 generations of cubans sitting in Florida that we have to keep telling to shut the fuck up, no we are not going to reconquer your land for you.

Lithose · Nov 27, 2016

Lendarios said:
lol sure,

"In a manner that antagonized the Cuban people, the U.S. government used its influence to advance the interests of and increase the profits of the private American companies, which "dominated the island's economy".[36]As a symbol of this relationship, ITT Corporation, an American-owned multinational telephone company, presented Batista with a Golden Telephone, as an "expression of gratitude" for the "excessive telephone rate increase" that Batista granted at the urging of the U.S. government.[36]"

Do you know who said that? John F kennedy
"Earl T. Smith, former U.S. Ambassador to Cuba, testified to the U.S. Senate in 1960 that, "Until Castro, the U.S. was so overwhelmingly influential in Cuba that the American ambassador was the second most important man, sometimes even more important than the Cuban president."[47] In addition, nearly "all aid" from the U.S. to Batista's government was in the "form of weapons assistance", which "merely strengthened the Batista dictatorship" and "completely failed to advance the economic welfare of the Cuban people".[36] Such actions later "enabled Castro and the Communists to encourage the growing belief that America was indifferent to Cuban aspirations for a decent life."[36]"

Yeah Lithose , tell me more how the cuban people turn their back on their 'friends" of the north.

Good job reading a Wiki Page Lend--again, you realize in context the U.S. at the time was working to try and get rid of your own corruption--which is what JFK was directly addressing. American businesses pumped billions of dollars into your economy, and when corruption began to rampantly take hold, they looked to a strong man to protect their assets. The U.S. government was sending people down there to try and reel back the situation, which is where all this info comes from, a speech by JFK on how we failed to SAVE YOU FROM YOURSELVES. Again, for the 5th time in 50 years, it was up to America to stop the corruption, we simply did it too slowly and a man was able to seize it all for himself at the head of a bunch of idiots (Castro). At which point your quality of life hit the shitter.

Also, of course the U.S. Ambassador was a big deal. We alone kept your enemies away, we were the largest source of revenue for your island, from your sugar to your mines. Every time we went to fix the Batista problem, moves against him by another tyrant made it implausible to do...And guess what, Lend? We were right...the moment Batista fell, the entire Island was seized by a corrupt asshole that regressed cuba decades, plummted your quality of life, literacy rates, life expentency, average wealth and a whole list of social metrics. Castro was in EVERY way worse than Barista that can be measured.

So I'm curious, again, how this makes us the bad guys? To see millions of dollars flowing into your island and knowing we can't destabilize you AGAIN by forcing new elections AGAIN without risking giving another tyrant an opening? Only to have all of our fears prove out exactly correct with said tyrant shitting on every good thing you had? It sounds, again, like the U.S. was the best fucking friend you ever had. And you guys were the national equivalent of angsty teenage shits blaming America for every hardship until you would up on your own and--shocker--everything was much shittier.

Yeah, I feel terrible about how mean we were...soooo terrible that American businesses were actually make your companies run efficiently, and providing you guys with a higher QoL and we were scared and tried to stop a sociopath dictator who we thought would really hurt you because he was able to convince you we were evil because of a few legitimate displays of poor taste and corruption. We sound TERRIBLE.

Lendarios · Nov 27, 2016

Lithose what are your thoughts on the Ostend Manifesto? Is that one of those were the USA wanted to Save Cuba from itself.

Lendarios · Nov 27, 2016

iannis said:
That's still not a colony. That's a nation being exploited by private interests. That's an economic vassal. Annexation would be a REMARKABLY good thing for Cuba. But there's no way that Americans want to invest in full annexation.

Not all colonies are economic vassals, not all economic vassals are colonies. The two things can overlap, but they do not describe the same relationship.

Castro used the wrong word for a very specific reason.

Think of it this way, lend. If Cuba actually HAD been an American colony... there's simply no way that he would have been allowed to take the island. We wouldn't have 2 generations of cubans sitting in Florida that we have to keep telling to shut the fuck up, no we are not going to reconquer your land for you.

Bro, do you even defacto?

Lithose · Nov 27, 2016

Lendarios said:
Lithose what are your thoughts on the Ostend Manifesto? Is that one of those were the USA wanted to Save Cuba from itself.

You mean the manifesto we rejected politically, and even ended in American bloodshed to ensure it would never happen, and instead chose to fight for your freedom therefore crystallizing our intent as not being colonizers and slave holders? Uhh, I think it does illustrate how the U.S. was really trying to be good neighbors. Read the whole Wiki before you post--since you clearly don't know this history.

When the document was published, Northerners were outraged by what they considered a Southern attempt to extend slavery. American free-soilers, recently angered by the strengthened Fugitive Slave Law (passed as part of the Compromise of 1850 and requiring officials of free states to cooperate in the return of slaves), decried as unconstitutional what Horace Greeley of the New York Tribune labeled "The Manifesto of the Brigands."[36] During the period of Bleeding Kansas, as anti- and pro-slavery supporters fought for control of the state, the Ostend Manifesto served as a rallying cry for the opponents of the Slave Power. The incident was one of many factors that gave rise to the Republican Party, and the manifesto was criticized in the Party's first platform in 1856 as following a "highwayman's" philosophy of "might makes right." But, the movement to annex Cuba did not fully end until after the American Civil War.[37]

The Pierce Administration was irreparably damaged by the incident. Pierce had been highly sympathetic to the Southern cause, and the controversy over the Ostend Manifesto contributed to the splintering of the Democratic Party.[38] Internationally, it was seen as a threat to Spain and to imperial power across Europe. It was quickly denounced by national governments in Madrid, London, and Paris. To preserve what favorable relations the administration had left, Soulé was ordered to cease discussion of Cuba; he promptly resigned.[39] The backlash from the Ostend Manifesto caused Pierce to abandon expansionist plans. It has been described as part of a series of "gratuitous conflicts... that cost more than they were worth" for Southern interests intent on maintaining the institution of slavery.[40]

Buchanan was easily elected President in 1856. Although he remained committed to Cuban annexation, he was hindered by popular opposition and the growing sectional conflict. It was not until thirty years after the Civil War that the so-called Cuban Question again came to national prominence.[

Yes, that's right Lend--the U.S. rejected the premise behind the Manifesto so soundly that it was killed in an actual fucking war to assert popular opinion--which was Cuba, as all people, would be given the right to self determine. I'm not sure what more evidence you could want than the fact that we killed fellow Americans over oppressing Cubans. God DAMN try not to help my arguments, dude.

Szlia · Nov 27, 2016

Since Lithose is about as verbose as Castro, we can have them argue with each other about the great benevolence of the US and how it improved the quality of life of cubans:

We surely cannot be blamed if there were 600,000 unemployed in Cuba and
37.5 per cent of the population were illiterate. We surely cannot be held
responsible if 2 per cent of the population suffered from tuberculosis and
95 per cent were affected by parasites. Until that moment none of us had
anything to do with the destiny of our country; until that moment, those
who had something to do with the destiny of our country were the rulers who
served the interests of the monopolies; until that moment, monopolies had
been in control of our country. Did anyone hinder them? No one. Did
anyone trouble them? No one. They were able to do their work, and there
we found the result of their work.

What was the state of our reserved when the tyrant Batista came to
power. There was $500,000,000 in our national reserve, a goodly sum to
have invested in the industrial development of the country. When the
Revolution came to power there was only $70,000,000 in our reserves.

Was there any concern for the industrial development of our country?
No. That is why we are astonished and amazed when we hear of the
extraordinary concern shown by the United States Government for the Fate of
the countries of Latin America, Africa and Asia. We cannot overcome our
amazement, because after fifty years we have the result of their concern
before our eyes.

Szlia · Nov 27, 2016

About investments...

But the truth is that in our country it was not only the land that was
the property of the agrarian monopolies. The largest and most important
mines were also owned by those monopolies. Cuba produces, for example, a
great deal of nickel. All of the nickel was exploited by American
interests, and under the tyranny of Batista, an American company, the Moa
Bay, had obtained such a juicy concession that in a mere five years -- mark
my words, in a mere five years -- it intended amortizing an investment of
$120,000,000. A $120,000,000 investment amortized in five years!

And who had given the Moa Bay company this concession through the
intervention of the Government of the United States? Quite simply, the
tyrannical government of Fulgencio Batista, which was there to defend the
interests of the monopolies. And this is an absolutely true fact. Exempt
from all taxes what were those companies going to leave for the Cubans?
The empty, worked out mines, the impoverished land, and not the slightest
contribution to the economic development of our country.

ZyyzYzzy · Nov 27, 2016

Szlia said:
Since Lithose is about as verbose as Castro, we can have them argue with each other about the great benevolence of the US and how it improved the quality of life of cubans:

We surely cannot be blamed if there were 600,000 unemployed in Cuba and
37.5 per cent of the population were illiterate. We surely cannot be held
responsible if 2 per cent of the population suffered from tuberculosis and
95 per cent were affected by parasites. Until that moment none of us had
anything to do with the destiny of our country; until that moment, those
who had something to do with the destiny of our country were the rulers who
served the interests of the monopolies; until that moment, monopolies had
been in control of our country. Did anyone hinder them? No one. Did
anyone trouble them? No one. They were able to do their work, and there
we found the result of their work.

What was the state of our reserved when the tyrant Batista came to
power. There was $500,000,000 in our national reserve, a goodly sum to
have invested in the industrial development of the country. When the
Revolution came to power there was only $70,000,000 in our reserves.

Was there any concern for the industrial development of our country?
No. That is why we are astonished and amazed when we hear of the
extraordinary concern shown by the United States Government for the Fate of
the countries of Latin America, Africa and Asia. We cannot overcome our
amazement, because after fifty years we have the result of their concern
before our eyes.

Szlia said:
About investments...

But the truth is that in our country it was not only the land that was
the property of the agrarian monopolies. The largest and most important
mines were also owned by those monopolies. Cuba produces, for example, a
great deal of nickel. All of the nickel was exploited by American
interests, and under the tyranny of Batista, an American company, the Moa
Bay, had obtained such a juicy concession that in a mere five years -- mark
my words, in a mere five years -- it intended amortizing an investment of
$120,000,000. A $120,000,000 investment amortized in five years!

And who had given the Moa Bay company this concession through the
intervention of the Government of the United States? Quite simply, the
tyrannical government of Fulgencio Batista, which was there to defend the
interests of the monopolies. And this is an absolutely true fact. Exempt
from all taxes what were those companies going to leave for the Cubans?
The empty, worked out mines, the impoverished land, and not the slightest
contribution to the economic development of our country.

And US interests were served, so no caro about los cubanos

Lendarios · Nov 27, 2016

Lithose said:
You mean the manifesto we rejected politically, and even ended in American bloodshed to ensure it would never happen, and instead chose to fight for your freedom therefore crystallizing our intent as not being colonizers and slave holders? Uhh, I think it does illustrate how the U.S. was really trying to be good neighbors. Read the whole Wiki before you post--since you clearly don't know this history.

When the document was published, Northerners were outraged by what they considered a Southern attempt to extend slavery. American free-soilers, recently angered by the strengthened Fugitive Slave Law (passed as part of the Compromise of 1850 and requiring officials of free states to cooperate in the return of slaves), decried as unconstitutional what Horace Greeley of the New York Tribune labeled "The Manifesto of the Brigands."[36] During the period of Bleeding Kansas, as anti- and pro-slavery supporters fought for control of the state, the Ostend Manifesto served as a rallying cry for the opponents of the Slave Power. The incident was one of many factors that gave rise to the Republican Party, and the manifesto was criticized in the Party's first platform in 1856 as following a "highwayman's" philosophy of "might makes right." But, the movement to annex Cuba did not fully end until after the American Civil War.[37]

The Pierce Administration was irreparably damaged by the incident. Pierce had been highly sympathetic to the Southern cause, and the controversy over the Ostend Manifesto contributed to the splintering of the Democratic Party.[38] Internationally, it was seen as a threat to Spain and to imperial power across Europe. It was quickly denounced by national governments in Madrid, London, and Paris. To preserve what favorable relations the administration had left, Soulé was ordered to cease discussion of Cuba; he promptly resigned.[39] The backlash from the Ostend Manifesto caused Pierce to abandon expansionist plans. It has been described as part of a series of "gratuitous conflicts... that cost more than they were worth" for Southern interests intent on maintaining the institution of slavery.[40]

Buchanan was easily elected President in 1856. Although he remained committed to Cuban annexation, he was hindered by popular opposition and the growing sectional conflict. It was not until thirty years after the Civil War that the so-called Cuban Question again came to national prominence.[

Yes, that's right Lend--the U.S. rejected the premise behind the Manifesto so soundly that it was killed in an actual fucking war to assert popular opinion--which was Cuba, as all people, would be given the right to self determine. I'm not sure what more evidence you could want than the fact that we killed fellow Americans over oppressing Cubans. God DAMN try not to help my arguments, dude.

The argument was if the United States wanted to Cuba annex Cuba, to wish the answer is yes. A segment of the political organization wanted this. It is there in the written document. They unable unable to actually do it , because they lost the civil war. At the very least, the South wanted to annex Cuba.

Lithose , Who wrote the Manifesto?

iannis · Nov 27, 2016

You realize that the cuba of 175 years ago is a very different thing?

Shit, there were large parts of the CONTINENT that hadn't been incorporated as States yet. Of COURSE the South wanted to annex Cuba. Most of the States that were slated to be coming into existence were not slave states. Slavery needed federal representation. And cuba was very obviously slave territory.

The South is also not "The United States". You insult me, a Fine Southerner, and Lithose, a Damn Yankee, both by equating the Confederate States with the United States. Technically you are completely incorrect, even in the narrow context of that specific point. "The United States" did not ever want to annex cuba. Certain member states of the United States did want that. And they were never allowed to act on that desire. "The United States", in fact, wanted exactly the opposite. To not annex Cuba.

That's like... just completely factually wrong. It's like saying Consensus watches anime so obviously Canada is Potato.

I mean what.

Lendarios · Nov 27, 2016

iannis When you are done moving the goalposts let me know.

Your original statement of Americans(at the turn of the 19 century) do not want to make Cuba a state, is not historically correct. You have plenty of historical document of this.

In light of a Cuban uprising, President James K. Polk refused solicitations from filibuster backer John L. O'Sullivan and stated his belief that any acquisition of the island must be an "amicable purchase."[11] Under orders from Polk, Secretary of State James Buchanan prepared an offer of $100 million, but "sooner than see [Cuba] transferred to any power, [Spanish officials] would prefer seeing it sunk into the ocean."[12] The Whig administrations of presidents Zachary Taylor and Millard Fillmore did not pursue the matter and took a harsher stand against filibusters as Venezuelan Narciso Lopez, with federal troops intercepting several expeditions bound for Cuba.[13] When Franklin Pierce took office in 1853, however, he was committed to Cuba's annexation.[8]

Franklin pierce was the 14th US president. How can you say that Americans were not interested in anexing, when even the US president allowed this.

Don't believe wikipedia, fine,
another source

In 1854, William Marcy, secretary of state under President Franklin Pierce, bowed to southern pressure and instructed James Buchanan, John Mason, and Pierre Soulé, ambassadors to England, France, and Spain, respectively, to meet in a convenient place to discuss further U.S. attempts to acquire Cuba. They met in Ostend, Belgium, and crafted the so-called Ostend Manifesto. It said that Cuba was vital to U.S. domestic interests.

Ostend Manifesto 1854 facts, information, pictures | Encyclopedia.com articles about Ostend Manifesto 1854

Fidel Castro is dead

Pronouns: zie/zhem/zer

Buzzfeed Editor

what Suineg set it to

Trump's Staff

what Suineg set it to

Trump's Staff

Buzzfeed Editor

Clump of Cells

Trump's Staff

Musty Nester

Buzzfeed Editor

Trump's Staff

Trump's Staff

Buzzfeed Editor

Member

Member

RIP USA

Trump's Staff

Musty Nester

Trump's Staff