Civil War History - "What if..." DiscussionsWhat if they had attacked instead of digging in...? What if he was in charge of the army instead...? Did you ever have a "What if..." question, and you weren't sure where to post it? Here's the place to ask these speculative questions!
Elektratig,
It ultimately boils down to technology, specifically the railroads. If you compare a map of the US rail system in 1850 to an 1860 map, you'd be shocked at how much of the rail system was constructed in the 1850-61 time period. Without the railroads the Union army would be tied to the coast and rivers for operations in order to maintain adequate supplies. If the Confederates used the guerrilla tactics that worked so well against the British early in the Revolution, odds are the North would have become disillusioned and given up.
Respectfully,
Matt
In The Political Crisis of the 1850s (1978; paper 1983), Michael F. Holt opines that "[t]he Comprise may not have passed if Zachary Taylor had not died."
In support of the contention, Professor Holt (University of Virginia) cites a factor I have not seen mentioned before. Zachary Taylor, a professional soldier, was elected as Whig but had no allegiance to the Whigs per se, regarding himself as an independent. He viewed the tradional Whig issues such as a national bank and internal improvements as too narrow or as having lost their appeal. He therefore set out, in effect, to create a new Whig party centered around himself (much as Andrew Jackson had) and composed of a coalition of moderate Whigs (i.e., Whigs not wedded to extreme tariffs and the like), moderate (non-Locofoco) Democrats, free soilers and others. There was even talk of renaming the party -- Taylor liked the name "Republican"!
Many traditional Whigs of the Clay-Webster school and loyalists in the state organizations were extremely upset with Taylor because he used his patronage powers to lure these potential coalition partners rather than to reward Whig loyalists.
Thus, when Millard Fillmore became President, traditional Whigs in Congress were delighted and were eager to help him in out in any way they could. As a result, many got off the fence and lined up in support of (or at least dropped their opposition to) elements of the Compromise when Fillmore endorsed it:
"[C]ongressional Whigs unhappy with Taylor's patronage appointments now swung to support Fillmore and the Compromise. Incredibly, even by the summer of 1850, the Democratic Senate had still refused to confirm men Taylor had nominated a year before. Fillmore had a chance to withdraw these nominations and name new men. . . With the new Whig administration now backing the Compromise, defections occurred among Northern Whig representatives and senators who had steadfastly opposed the Compromise while Taylor was alive. Erosion was particularly heavy in the immense Whig delegation from New York. Either by abstaining or voting directly for them they allowed the controversial laws constituting the Compromise of 1850 to pass."
The Political Crisis of the 1850s at p. 87 (paperback ed.).
The South fought the war over slavery and lost the war because of slavery. The southern states has so much invested in slaves, that it never could adequately finance hardly any industry, other than what was mainly found in Richmond.
Without Richmond's industry, the war would never have lasted two years.
The Confederacy's blind spot was its failure to see the necessity of financing private industry to turn out the rails, the firearms, the supplies necessary to fight a war.
It's own constitution doomed them to eventual failure by restricting the Confederate federal government to finance commerce with taxation.
A third rate nation with a third rate industry and third rate navy, was not going to conquer one of the advanced industrial empires in the world. Many were familiar names into the late 20th century
-------------------------------
"The foundations of fortunes laid during the war were: Armour(meat packing), Havemeyer (sugar), Weyerhaeser (lumber), Huntington (merchandise and railroads), Remington (guns), Rockefeller (oil), Carnegie(iron and steel), Borden(milk), Marshall Field (merchandise)..."
p668 The Oxford History of the American People. Samuel Eliot Morison. 1965.
I'm bumping this thread to the top to raise a specific sub-question:
Assuming that, in 1850 or 1851, one or more southern states had seceded, what are the odds that the north would have prevailed? More or less likely than 1860-1? I am wondering about both political considerations (would the north have had the determination and commitment that it displayed ten years later?) and military considerations (do differences in military and non-military technology [guns, railroads, armored river boats] and/or tactics and/or personnel [e.g., a vigorous Winfield Scott] suggest that it was more or less likely that the north would have prevailed?).
Has anyone see or read a good discussion of this subject?
Interesting question, elektratig. Recall going through this at one time -- probably on this board, but you raise some interesting questions.
There were fewer, less radical abolitionists, but there were fewer, less radical secessionists. Conclusion: Seven seceding states would have been unlikely. let alone eleven.
Southern interests were not facing the loss of legislative power in 1850 that they were in 1860. Conclusion: Less slave-state unanimity.
The president was a southern toady and the northern democrats had not yet become disenchanted with sucking-up to their southern brethren. Conclusion: The south was still fairly comfortable with its power in the Federal Government; ergo, no particular urgency to secede.
A more vigorous Scott and an officer corps with fresher battle experience might have been an inhibiting factor, but the same would be true of southern officers. Perhaps the recency of the previous war would have dampened rebellious spirits somewhat.
The south was even less prepared for independence in 1850 than it was in 1860, after all, there was a spurt of industrialization and RR building in the 50s. Of course, the north was also not the industrial powerhouse it would become; ten years of building and inventing and immigrating can make a lot of difference. The south, however, was closer to parity in 1850 than it was in 1860.
Please excuse the rambling, there's a lot of things to think about in your question. Guess it wouldn't hurt to take up the discussion from here.
ole
__________________ I never knew a man who wished to be himself a slave. Consider if you know any good thing that no man desires for himself. A. Lincoln
The only way I would see a secession occuring in the early 1850s is if the Compromise of 18550 doesn't occur. You might see a disillusioned Texas secede (balance that with Texas' interest to stay out of Mexico), but the key here is California because it is California's admission as a free state that trips the balance in favor of free states. Essentially that's the ominous sign that things are going to get fractious between North/South.
Personally I believe the 1850s was still too early for the simple fact that the country would've lost itself because it had won the Mexican War (ie. we're going to split because we can't decide on how to split up the spoils)
The events at the time, seem to indicate that If Taylor had not died when he did, there would have been a pretty close parallel with 1860 - 1861.
Taylor was committed to bringing the Mexican War territorial acquisitions, into the Union as free states. At the time of his death,Taylor seems to have given no real indications that he had changed his mind.
While it may be true that there was more sentiment for the Union in the South in 1850 than a decade later, but that is only in comparison with that of 1860.
If Taylor remained obdurant concerning his plan, the recurring Congressional crisises would, most likely, have been compressed into the 1850 Congress. Leading to an attempted southern secession over slavery, leading to an invasion by a national army led by a hard war President. How that would have played out in 1850 is lost in the mists of probability, but for what it's worth IMO it would have a a 2 or 3 year war with the North victorious. Since then, as in 1860, the war would be seen as the cause of secession, slavery might not have been immediately ended, it certainly would have been set securely on the road to extinction.
The events at the time, seem to indicate that If Taylor had not died when he did, there would have been a pretty close parallel with 1860 - 1861.
Taylor was committed to bringing the Mexican War territorial acquisitions, into the Union as free states. At the time of his death,Taylor seems to have given no real indications that he had changed his mind.
While it may be true that there was more sentiment for the Union in the South in 1850 than a decade later, but that is only in comparison with that of 1860.
If Taylor remained obdurant concerning his plan, the recurring Congressional crisises would, most likely, have been compressed into the 1850 Congress. Leading to an attempted southern secession over slavery, leading to an invasion by a national army led by a hard war President. How that would have played out in 1850 is lost in the mists of probability, but for what it's worth IMO it would have a a 2 or 3 year war with the North victorious. Since then, as in 1860, the war would be seen as the cause of secession, slavery might not have been immediately ended, it certainly would have been set securely on the road to extinction.
I do not think the South could have conducted a "military" secession in 1850. Until John Brown's raid, the militia system in the South was pretty decrepid and it took the "wake up call" of Brown's raid to get them to fix the problems. The rejuvinated militias formed the core of the Confederate States Army. Without this, what would the CSA forces looked like? Not nearly as good, it seems.
__________________ "There must be more historians of the Civil War than there were generals figthing in it... Of the two groups, the historians are the more belligerent." David Donald, Lincoln Reconsidered (1961)
I cannot help but think, on a global scale, there was much 'unrest.'
In a May 28, 1865 The New York Times reported a lengthy account of "Political Assassinations" and or 'attempts' to assassinate leaders in various nations/countries abroad.
Queen Victoria, of England reported four attempts on her life; June 28, 1850 being one by a retired Lt. Robert Pate of the 10th Hussars.
King of Prussia, May 1850, the late King recieved a large bore shot as he boarded a railway carriage the (then present King of Prussia) on July 14, 1861 had two pistol shots fired at him by Oscar Becker, assassination attempt was over the King's inability to unite Germany.
Emperor of Austria, Feb. 18, 1853 in Vienna, Francis Joseph I was struck with a knife in the nape of the neck by a 20 year old tailor.
Duke of Parma, (Ferdinand Charles III),on March 20, 1854 while returning from an excursion was hustled by an individual at the same time stabbing the Duke of Parma in the stomach, leaving the weapon in the wound and escaped. The Duke died in 23 hours of his wounds that tortured him in a cruel way medically.
Queen of Spain, Isabella, in an second attempt on May 23, 1856; was passing along in her carriage in Madrid Raymond Fuentes drew a pistol from his pocket and would have discharged if not for a police officer.
King of Naples, King Ferdinand II, whille reviewing his troops on Dec. 8, 1856, in Naples--was approached by a soldier named Agesilas Milano, who struck the King with a bayonet.
Napoleon III, in October 1852 who was to become Emperor, on the 'eve' of this event--there hadd been a prepared infernal machine made up of 250 barrels, charged with 1,500 balls was intended to go off all at once aimed at the Prince (Napoleon III) and his cortege. Another fresh attempt was made on July 5, 1853 to assassinate Napoleon as he was going to an Opera. Twelve were arrested in regard to the conspiracy. April 28, 1865 Jean Liverani fired two shots at the Emperor. Again in 1857, Tibaldi. Bartolotti and Grilli came from England to Paris to assassinate the Emporer but were discovered, arrested, tried and punished. January 14, 1858; Orsini, Gomez, Pieri and Rudio threw murderous shells at the Emperor missing the Emperor but killing many French citizens instead.
Queen of Greece, on Sept 18, 1862 directing public affairs on behalf of the absent King; while returning from a ride on horseback, was fired at without effect near the palace--not taking effect.
Victor Emmanuel II, in 1858, an attack on his life was made and Count Cavour gave an account of the attack, that was originally made on April 16, 1858.
Then, we have President Lincoln's assassination on April 14, 1865.
So, for me --unrest and dissatisfaction was not just here at home in the USA.
Now, in a different vein of thought, observation and impressions -- The US Army and it's weapons, supplies and such were not in any real location handy to the South. Yes, spots were available and warehouses. A lot of the equipment the Confederate Army acquired in the beginning of the Civil War was actually 'stolen' property from the US Government. For those to whom preached the 'word of God,' should have known the theft of property was against the 10 Commandments as much as 'thou shall not kill.' Again, the human ability to twist religion as well as anything else to suit a purpose is evident--nothing new; its happened thousand of years prior, e.g. Crusades, The Inquisition, etc.
Even if there was a desire to 'rebel' in the Southern States/Commonwealth; the Mexican War had not come to it's conclusion. Perhaps the 'polititians' and 'ones stirring things up' knew that nobody in the Regular Army would stop the fight with Mexico; as it would still be in the best interest of North and or South to attend to the matter of Mexico first--then deal with the internal issues later; as they could be delayed and not an 'emergency.'
Just some thoughts.
Respectfully submitted for consideration,
M. E. Wolf
Although most Southern Congressmen were still thinking in political terms. They were adamant that the Mexican War territories would not ALL come in as Free States.
If Taylor, a military man not a trained politician, insisted on having his own way in this matter, it would have caused the uniting of the minority who already favored secession with the greater majority whose Unionist sentiments were conditioned on preserving slavery.
After such a United Front occured, even if Taylor finally backed down, this very act would have had repercussions throughout the Country. Once united the south would have realized they had dodged a bullet and averted a direct threat to slavery only by a united front by all southerners or all political persuasions. The North would see a slave oligarchy flexing its muscle in the interests of expanding a slave empire.
Historically, we already know that although the political leadership of the country and especially in Congress and the Presidency, the quality of leadership was not up to the challenge of successfully governing a increasingly sectionalized country. It is hard not to be more pessimistic than confident concerning the results of Taylor's Presidency, if he had lived. IMO it probably would have led to War a decade earlier than it actually did.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
