Filibuster Armies

The Hidden Hands

“Filibuster, n. 1. An irregular military adventurer, esp. one in quest of plunder; a freebooter; — orig. applied to buccaneers infesting the Spanish American coasts; later, an organizer or member of a hostile expedition to some country or countries with which his own is at peace, in contravention of international law.”

One very important part of the puzzle that has been intentionally hidden, I believe, from popular history “teaching” is this. This represents a profound explanation for the mechanics of just how the Messianic evil doers navigated upon this land, et.al.

See, the overthrowing of this land started in 1776, and has not stopped to this day. To most people it may seem obscure or strange how any of these “past” things matter, but trust, they absolutely do. Why? Because the same evil doers, as an energy, are still here now, and they are still stealing lands by force of violence.

Around 1500 they came, the Messianic Fanatics from Spain, they set up shop, and never left, being overseer of the “great UNAM SANCTUM” ordeal here on this land, while pretending, acting, as a help meet. In reality it was quite the opposite. You heard? They actually were “quarterbacking” the entire violent fiasco.

From the original Hebrew Republic of Massachusetts, doing business as (DBA) Plymouth Colony, to the late 1700's the push was on to steal land, resources, murder and traffic slaves, Indians, out of the colonies. This was accomplished, manifestly. When that was accomplished the same group decided to move west on this land and then when that was accomplished, which it was, then to move down into Central, South America, Cuba and Hawaii. Which they did.

These foreign armies, masquerading as “Americas,” were the de facto militia of the usurpers who came to this land. The ones who came not to share and do business, but to murder for no reason, steal and take it all. Which they have tried to do non-stop.

Bear in mind the filibusters played a major role in annexing every territory from the tribes on this land, from the colonies, to Texas, the West coast, and a major role in the destruction of entire regions of peoples. These were not nice people. They were privately funded, most foreign, Messianic, mercenary groups who had no problem with violence and bloodshed and they had free run on this land, to riot, vandalize, steal, and do harm all the way up until the middle 1900's. Most, 99%, were never punished. For those who doubt there are 75 pages or so incorporated herein:

Don't ever get it twisted, these were “organized,” financed, and directed by a single entity, I believe, although they have the appearance of being random. Who supported the filibuster movements? From where? The “South and North” of the states united. Who had infiltrated that land and drove us “Indians” out?

“A filibuster (from the Spanish filibustero), also known as a freebooter, is someone who engages in an unauthorized military expedition into a foreign country or territory to foster or support a political revolution or secession. The term is usually applied to United States citizens who incited insurrections across Latin America, particularly in the mid-19th century, usually with the goal of establishing an American-loyal regime that could later be annexed into the United States. Probably the most notable example is the Filibuster War initiated by William Walker in Nicaragua in the 1850s. Filibusters are irregular soldiers who act without official authorization from their own government, and are generally motivated by financial gain, political ideology, or the thrill of adventure.”

“Unlike mercenaries, filibusters are independently motivated and work for themselves, whilst a mercenary leader operates on behalf of others. The freewheeling actions of the filibusters of the 1850s led to the name being applied figuratively to the political act of filibustering in the United States Congress.”

“The English term "filibuster" derives from the Spanish filibustero, itself deriving originally from the Dutch vrijbuiter, 'privateer, pirate, robber' (also the root of English freebooter).The Spanish form entered the English language in the 1850s, as applied to military adventurers from the United States then operating in Central America and the Spanish West Indies.”

“The Spanish term was first applied to persons raiding Spanish colonies and ships in the West Indies, the most famous of whom was Francis Drake with his 1573 raid on Nombre de Dios. With the end of the era of Caribbean piracy in the early 18th century "filibuster" fell out of general currency.”

“The term was revived in the mid-19th century to describe the actions of adventurers who tried to take control of various Caribbean, Mexican, and Central-American territories by force of arms. In 1806, the general Francisco de Miranda launched an unsuccessful expedition to liberate Venezuela from Spanish rule with volunteers from the United States recruited in New York City. The three most prominent filibusters of that era were Narciso López and John Quitman in Cuba and William Walker in Baja California, Sonora, Costa Rica and lastly Nicaragua. The term returned to American parlance to refer to López's 1851 Cuban expedition.”

“The mid-nineteenth century (1848–1860) saw Southern planters raise private armies for expeditions to Mexico, the Caribbean, Central and South America to acquire territories that could be annexed to the Union as slave states. Despite not being authorized by their government, Southern elites often held considerable sway over U.S. foreign policy and national politics. Despite widespread opposition from Northerners, filibustering thrust slavery into American foreign policy.”

“Historians have noted that filibustering was not a common practice and was carried out by "the most radical pro-slavery expansionists". Hardline defenders of slavery saw its preservation as their "top priority", leading to support for filibusters and their campaigns abroad. At the height of filibustering, pro-slavery politicians wanted to expand the United States further into Latin America, as far as Paraguay and Peru. However, these attempts were quickly withdrawn when military and diplomatic retaliation was pursued. The author and filibuster Horace Bell observed that it could be unpopular to be opposed to filibusterism, as being so 'was to be opposed to African slavery'.”

“On the abolitionist side, John Brown was accused by both Catholic and pro Republican newspapers of being a filibuster after leaving New York and heading to Virginia to lead the raid on Harpers Ferry. Comparisons were drawn between his actions and those of Walker, notably how both aimed to use violence in order to change the status of slavery (with Walker wanting to introduce slavery and Brown wanting to destroy it). Many future Confederate officers and soldiers, such as Chatham Roberdeau Wheat, of the Louisiana Tigers, obtained valuable military experience from filibuster expeditions.”

“In the 1850s, American adventurer William Walker launched several filibustering campaigns leading a private mercenary army. In 1853, he declared a short-lived republic in the Mexican states of Sonora and Baja California. Later, when a path through Lake Nicaragua was being considered as the possible site of a canal through Central America (see Nicaragua canal), he was hired as a mercenary by one of the factions in a civil war in Nicaragua. He declared himself commander of the country's army in 1856; and soon afterward President of the Republic. Walker received no form of direct military or financial aid from the US government but in 1856 his government did receive official recognition from Democratic President Franklin Pierce.”

“In June of the same year Walker was endorsed as an agent of Central America’s regeneration by the Democratic National Convention’s party platform. This support for Walker was later publicly retracted due to allegations of Corruption but ‘Walker's movement to many Democrats, represented a natural outgrowth of the U.S. annexation of Texas, the Mexican-American War. After attempting to take control of the rest of Central America he was defeated by the four other Central American nations he tried to invade and eventually executed in 1860 by the local Honduran authorities he had tried to overthrow.”

“Women often participated in filibustering, taking active roles such as planning, propaganda, participation, and popularization. Women also composed songs, arranged balls and concerts on behalf of the filibusters. Most of the interest came from women in the Gulf and Mid-Atlantic states as they were closer to the events.”

“Correspondingly those in the Northern states tended not to take much interest in what was going on further south. Many women attended the filibuster expeditions as settlers, to help with casualties and to aid the expeditions in any way they could. Many women were at the front line experiencing first hand the armed engagements. A few even took up arms and used them to defend their men and property.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster_(military)

“After the territorial acquisitions of the 1840s, the idea of additional territorial expansion remained popular with the U.S. public, as did the idea of spreading republican government. Many pro-slavery Southerners sought to expand southwards, allowing for more territory where slavery could continue to grow and expand. Some even imagined the United States as a great slave-owning republic that would stretch across the Caribbean to Brazil.”

“These expansionist dreams were aided at first by a Venezuelan-born resident of Cuba, Narciso Lopez, who, like some wealthy Cuban slave-owners, was wary of shaky Spanish rule over the island, and thus sought to have it annexed by the United States in order to ensure slavery's preservation in Cuba. Cuban property owners were concerned that Spain would give in to British pressure to abolish slavery in Cuba. Lopez organized several failed expeditions to liberate Cuba from Spanish rule, the last resulting in his capture and execution in Havana in 1851. The American public condemned Spanish actions, especially Lopez's execution without trial, but U.S. President Millard Fillmore did not issue a denunciation. Public anger against Fillmore's seemingly lukewarm support for expansion contributed to a Whig defeat in 1852.”

“In an attempt to mollify the Democratic Party's staunch pro-slavery wing, the new President, Franklin Pierce, appointed the pro-slavery politician Pierre Soul as Minister to Spain in 1853. However, Soul did not possess a personality well-suited to tactful diplomacy. During his appointment, Soul disregarded his instructions to preserve Spanish sovereignty and delivered an unauthorized ultimatum to the Spanish Government regarding a seized U.S. merchant ship. Soul also wounded the French Ambassador in a duel and began to associate with Spanish revolutionaries planning to overthrow the government.”

“In 1854, Soul met with other U.S. Ministers to draft a document known as the Ostend Manifesto, which outlined U.S. reasons for attempting to purchase Cuba from Spain. Once the documents were publicly released, they proved embarrassing for the Pierce Administration, and U.S. Secretary of State William Marcy implied that Soul had instigated the meeting. In the meantime, the Spanish Government began to take countermeasures against U.S. interests in Cuba. The Spanish Minister to the United States, Angel Calderon de la Barca, gathered intelligence on planned filibustering expeditions to Cuba. In Cuba, officials took steps to free slaves who had arrived on the island after 1835 and planned to organize a free black militia that would oppose any pro-slavery invaders. Growing antislavery sentiment in the northern United States and Spanish determination to hold on to Cuba eventually forced U.S. leaders to end attempts to acquire the island.”

“However, as Cuba receded from controversy, filibustering again gained attention in Nicaragua. American William Walker, who had led a failed filibustering expedition to Baja California in 1853, launched an expedition to Nicaragua in 1855. Allying himself at first with the Liberal faction in Nicaraguan politics, he eliminated his local rivals and became president in 1856. However, Walker's policies hurt British business interests, as well as those of American tycoon Cornelius Vanderbilt. Walker also alienated his Nicaraguan Liberal allies, and his regime caused growing anti-American sentiment elsewhere in Central America. These factors eventually led to Walker's downfall in 1857, despite his attempts to secure pro-slavery support by re-legalizing slavery in the Central American country. Walker attempted a re-conquest of Nicaragua in 1860, but was captured and executed.”

https://2001-2009.state.gov/r/pa/ho/time/dwe/106557.htm

“Southern expansionists had spearheaded the drive to add more territory to the United States. They applauded the Louisiana Purchase and fervently supported Indian removal, the annexation of Texas, and the Mexican-American War. Drawing inspiration from the annexation of Texas, proslavery expansionists hoped to replicate that feat by bringing Cuba and other territories into the United States and thereby enlarging the American empire of slavery.”

“In the 1850s, the expansionist drive among white southerners intensified. Among southern imperialists, one way to push for the creation of an American empire of slavery was through the actions of filibusters—men who led unofficial military operations intended to seize land from foreign countries or foment revolution there. These unsanctioned military adventures were not part of the official foreign policy of the United States; American citizens simply formed themselves into private armies to forcefully annex new land without the government’s approval.”

“An 1818 federal law made it a crime to undertake such adventures, which was an indication of both the reality of efforts at expansion through these illegal expeditions and the government’s effort to create a U.S. foreign policy. Nonetheless, Americans continued to filibuster throughout the nineteenth century. In 1819, an expedition of two hundred Americans invaded Spanish Texas, intent on creating a republic modeled on the United States, only to be driven out by Spanish forces. Using force, taking action, and asserting white supremacy in these militaristic drives were seen by many as an ideal of American male vigor. President Jackson epitomized this military prowess as an officer in the Tennessee militia, where earlier in the century he had played a leading role in ending the Creek War and driving Indian peoples out of Alabama and Georgia. His reputation helped him to win the presidency in 1828 and again in 1832.”

“Filibustering plots picked up pace in the 1850s as the drive for expansion continued. Slaveholders looked south to the Caribbean, Mexico, and Central America, hoping to add new slave states. Spanish Cuba became the objective of many American slaveholders in the 1850s, as debate over the island dominated the national conversation. Many who urged its annexation believed Cuba had to be made part of the United States to prevent it from going the route of Haiti, with black slaves overthrowing their masters and creating another black republic, a prospect horrifying to many in the United States.”

“Americans also feared that the British, who had an interest in the sugar island, would make the first move and snatch Cuba from the United States. Since Britain had outlawed slavery in its colonies in 1833, blacks on the island of Cuba would then be free.”

“Narisco López, a Cuban who wanted to end Spanish control of the island, gained American support. He tried five times to take the island, with his last effort occurring in the summer of 1851 when he led an armed group from New Orleans. Thousands came out to cheer his small force as they set off to wrest Cuba from the Spanish. Unfortunately for López and his supporters, however, the effort to take Cuba did not produce the hoped-for spontaneous uprising of the Cuban people. Spanish authorities in Cuba captured and executed López and the American filibusters.”

“Efforts to take Cuba continued under President Franklin Pierce, who had announced at his inauguration in 1853 his intention to pursue expansion. In 1854, American diplomats met in Ostend, Belgium, to find a way to gain Cuba. They wrote a secret memo, known as the Ostend Manifesto (thought to be penned by James Buchanan, who was elected president two years later), stating that if Spain refused to sell Cuba to the United States, the United States was justified in taking the island as a national security measure.”

“The contents of this memo were supposed to remain secret, but details were leaked to the public, leading the House of Representatives to demand a copy. Many in the North were outraged over what appeared to be a southern scheme, orchestrated by what they perceived as the Slave Power—a term they used to describe the disproportionate influence that elite slaveholders wielded—to expand slavery. European powers also reacted with anger. Southern annexationists, however, applauded the effort to take Cuba. The Louisiana legislature in 1854 asked the federal government to take decisive action, and John Quitman, a former Mississippi governor, raised money from slaveholders to fund efforts to take the island.”

“Cuba was not the only territory in slaveholders’ expansionist sights: some focused on Mexico and Central America. In 1855, Tennessee-born William Walker, along with an army of no more than sixty mercenaries, gained control of the Central American nation of Nicaragua. Previously, Walker had launched a successful invasion of Mexico, dubbing his conquered land the Republic of Sonora. In a relatively short period of time, Walker was dislodged from Sonora by Mexican authorities and forced to retreat back to the United States.”

“Why Nicaragua? Nicaragua presented a tempting target because it provided a quick route from the Caribbean to the Pacific: Only twelve miles of land stood between the Pacific Ocean, the inland Lake Nicaragua, and the river that drained into the Atlantic. Shipping from the East Coast to the West Coast of the United States had to travel either by land across the continent, south around the entire continent of South America, or through Nicaragua. Previously, American tycoon Cornelius Vanderbilt had recognized the strategic importance of Nicaragua and worked with the Nicaraguan government to control shipping there. The filibustering of William Walker may have excited expansionist-minded southerners, but it greatly upset Vanderbilt’s business interests in the region.”

“Walker clung to the racist, expansionist philosophies of the pro-slavery South. In 1856, Walker made slavery legal in Nicaragua—it had been illegal there for thirty years—in a move to gain the support of the South. He also reopened the slave trade. In 1856, he was elected president of Nicaragua, but in 1857, he was chased from the country. When he returned to Central America in 1860, he was captured by the British and released to Honduran authorities, who executed him by firing squad.”

https://courses.lumenlearning.com/ushistory1os2xmaster/chapter/the-filibuster-and-the-quest-for-new-slave-states/

“Only three years prior to the outbreak of the American Civil War, there was an ideological transition that greatly influenced the rapidly increasing polarization between the northern and southern United States. In 1857, the arrest of the notorious filibuster William Walker by Commodore Hiram Paulding caused filibustering to become one of the most important public issues of its time. During the 1800s, filibusterism was the term applied to the actions of groups of men, most commonly small groups of adventurers known as filibusters, who formed private military forces, and who invaded foreign countries that maintained peaceful relations with the United States with the intention of conquering them.”

“In 1855, Walker and a small militia of fifty-eight men seized control of the Nicaraguan government. He then presided as commander-in-chief over a coalition government, and he later declared himself president of Nicaragua in July of 1856. One year later he was arrested on foreign soil by the United States Navy and this incident, along with his forced return to the country, became known as the Nicaraguan affair. It called into question the legality of the actions of both filibusters and the United States government among the general public. The Nicaraguan affair produced an ideological polarization between the North and South, and its rise to prominence on a national stage can be divided into transitional phases that characterize this movement.”

“The first part of this essay uses New York newspaper coverage of William Walker’s return to the United States and the reaction to this event among the American population in order to demonstrate the division of public opinion that existed over this affair. It acknowledges the commonly recognized link between filibustering and the yearning to expand the institution of slavery beyond the borders of the United States. Next, evidence is provided to prove that a division existed by examining the public debate that ensued over whether or not filibustering would lead to the democratization of Central America and bring benefits to the territory.”

“Finally, the coverage provided over the division that existed on whether filibustering was legal is examined, and in considering this, how it could function to either hurt or improve the image of the United States on an international level. As public opinion became increasingly divided over the Nicaraguan affair, the Buchanan administration was driven to take a stance on filibusterism. The media coverage of the public reaction to this administrative position represents the second part of this essay, and the administration’s involvement represents another major way that the issue polarized the nation. Buchanan’s condemnation of filibusterism only further divided the nation. As a result, a Senate debate over filibusterism then ensued among the United States’ most prominent Northern and Southern senators. This senatorial debate represents the peak of filibustering in its rise to prominence in national attention during the late 1850s.”

“This essay argues that the New York newspaper coverage of William Walker and the Nicaraguan affair demonstrates the sectional divergence that existed over the issue of filibustering in Central America as one of the precursors to the United States Civil War. This polarization can be placed into three primary phases: the media coverage of filibustering upon Walker’s return, the sectional reaction to the position of Buchanan administration, and the congressional debate over filibustering.”

“Southerners, including Walker, did identify with filibustering partly because of the presence of slavery on the South. One well-documented belief tying the two issues together was that through filibustering, Southerners would be able to extend black bondage into Central America. The idea was that the institution would ride in on the heels of filibusterers such as Walker, who would have already established control of Central American nations as he had accomplished years before in Nicaragua. Though his attempt at resurrecting slavery had been thwarted, it was reported to be a position that some Southerners still supported. On December 23, 1857, the New York Daily Tribune published an article from a correspondence relating the events of a meeting in Mobile, Alabama, called to express sympathy for Walker and his expedition.”

“In the article the correspondent offers a glance at the wariness for a new Southern movement, which it claimed was attempting to essentially make Nicaragua into a new Texas, or to occupy the role that Texas had assumed in the year of its annexation. However, the slavery question and its link to the filibuster missions was not the only important aspect of filibusterism that was dividing public opinion. Public opinion was also divided over whether or not filibusterism was a vehicle for the democratization of Central America and whether it benefited or adversely affected the nations it was imposed upon.”

“The debate over filibusterism in the media reflected the morals in contention between the North and the South. In other words, some Southerners felt that the imposition of North American government outside of the United States border was of benefit to the afflicted nation regardless of whether it was accomplished through filibustering. More specifically, it was believed that filibusters benefited Nicaraguan society, and that military transgressions in Central America were inherently positive. This argument is visible in the following excerpts taken from speeches that were reproduced in both Northern and Southern newspapers. The Southern support for filibustering manifested itself in the media in reports on town meetings regarding the issue.”

“On January 11, 1858, the New York Herald published a report on a meeting in Petersburg, Virginia, originally printed in the Richmond Whig. The meeting was called to condemn the actions of Commodore Paulding for arresting General Walker and to speak in defense of the filibuster cause. At the meeting, two key speeches were given and were outlined in the article, one identified with a man named Mr. Pryor, and another by Mr. Old.”

“Pryor, in his speech, “vindicated the character of General Walker, his motives and the objects of his enterprise from the aspersions of his enemies, maintained his entire exemption from responsibility to this government, the legitimacy of his claim to the Presidency of Nicaragua,” and “the advantage to the world of opening Central America to the quickening influences of industry, civilization and good government.”

“This dialogue highlighted key beliefs towards the positive influence of filibustering on Central America and pointed to other factors aside from slavery as motivation. Clearly Pryor believed that the invading forces were a benefit to both Central America and the rest of the world. In short, he felt that the filibustering of William Walker could enable the formation of a government that would civilize the region. At the same time Old supported the above position, he also pointed to other reasons for his advocacy for Southern support of filibustering. In fact, he explicitly presented his beliefs over the issue in a manner that was highly characteristic of the ideological polarization that had become common as a result of the filibuster issue. He “regarded the possession of the tropics as of vital importance to the South” and believed that by securing all of the products of the tropics, the South “might defy all the schemes of Northern fanatics, and British competitors and rivals in commerce.”

“Old emphasized the necessity of a Southern occupation of Central America enabled by the filibustering movement, as a bargaining tool with which to stave off the North and retain a competitive hold on the world market. This is clearly not a vision of a unified United States, but instead one where the North and South represent separate entities in a regional competition. This view exemplifies those during this period that proved cataclysmic to the diplomatic ties between the North and the South. Further, this regional competition is exactly what happened only three years later, as a result of the continued exacerbation of sectional digression, upon the outbreak of the American Civil War. Indeed, in reporting on the existence of these Southern sentiments in a Northern newspaper, the media was likely generating animosity, whether intentional or not, between the two regions. The North, in contrast to the Southern position on filibustering, condemned the filibusters as a misrepresentation of democratic expansion and influence outside of the United States. Specifically, the popular belief was that Walker’s undertaking in Nicaragua was not at all representative of democratic ideals.”

“The January 4 New York Daily Tribune stated “Walker and his filibusters, in going to Nicaragua as the allies and abettors of the Democratic Party of that country as against the aristocrats and legitimatists, can only be compared to the wolves… who put themselves forward to be appointed guardians of the sheep-fold.”

It was perceived in the North that Walker was moving through Central America on a platform of pseudo-democracy, and his intentions were really to conquer Nicaragua and construct non-democratic institutions supported by white supremacist ideals. By assisting the Nicaraguan democrats, a party composed of “Indians, Negroes and mixed castes,”10 Walker was posing as a benefactor in the “overthrow of the doctrine that only white men are fit to govern.”

“By supporting the Nicaraguan Democratic Party, Walker was trying to accomplish the overthrow of a white government by means of a popular mixed-race movement, temporarily assist the establishment of a new government, then usurp power and re-establish his own white government. He was not laying the groundwork for democratic expansion in Central America; instead, he was perceived as establishing his own form of autocracy.”

By exposing this belief, the media portrayed the Northern wariness of Walker’s non-democratic methods within an atmosphere of Southern support. A final issue that divided public opinion in the media over the Nicaraguan affair was whether filibusterism was a legal institution, and in considering its legality, how it functioned to either improve or hurt the image of the United States. Editorials were published that took positions against the motivations of the filibusters and the reflections that the movement had on the U.S. The Union published an extensive piece on the Walker and Paulding affair that highlights this attitude. In the critique, “filibustering expeditions are deprecated as unlawful, wrong intrinsically, and disgraceful to the character of the country” by the author of the editorial.”

“These strong words express a belief that the filibustering expeditions acted contrarily to the author’s conception of United States idealism and it is representative of a dispute that existed against the aggressive action.”

Filibustering to the Forefront of National Attention Elliot Andrew Anderson

https://pubs.lib.uiowa.edu/iowa-historical-review/article/1641/galley/110638/view/

See, the evil doers were so confident in the absolute capitulation of the states united that they decided to export their terror, in a sort of “conquest 2.0” of Central and South America. They had already done so much evil and damage, without consequences, that other foreign evil doers put together whole operations to exterminate, plunder and pillage this land. They accomplished it. The “Indian Removal Act.” Check. The “Homestead Acts,” many of them. Check. The California Gold rush and extermination or admitted genocide of the California Indians. Check. The aforementioned 75 pages of rampages. Check. I could go on.

Your history teacher left this part out, and know with certitude, the evil doers were not just removing “Indians,” they were removing “everybody” and taking their places. The “real” filibuster is not about talking or politics. You heard?

Lord have Mercy