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!
And, to add to your last paragraph; if the Civil War/Rebellion did occur a decade earlier, the military leadership would have been entirely different which would have affected/effected the battles and their outcome.
The early 1850's would have been the secessionist best shoot to secede from the union. The secessionist plans to successfully secede from union always relied on Britain or another European power to come to their aid.
The chances of Britain or another European Power coming to the secessionist aid would have been at its peak during the early 1850's before the Crimean War.
Cotton was the King of exports until the Crimean War. From the Crimean War on Britain and other European counties had to rely on North grains to feed their people. By 1860 Northern grain had trumped Southern Cotton as Britain's and Europe's most important import.
If the Southern states had secede early 1850's, Britain mills losing their supply of cotton might have motivate the British to come to their aid for Britain at that time got their grains from Russia.
The secession would never have worked without the intervention of another World Power of that day coming to their aid for the early 1850's present the secessionist their best opportunity of this happening.
__________________
"States Rights are about States Wrongs" - Jesse Jackson
Very fine point 5fish. Europe needed cotton more than grain in 1850. Might have been a very important factor in the consideration.
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
If it is true that it was nearly impossible for the south to gain it's independence, without foreign aid, then the 1850's would probably have been as disastrous to such expectations as the 1860's.
A Napoleon had come to imperial throne of France in 1851 and immediately embroiled himself, Great Britain, Russia and the Ottoman Empire in a political crisis over Jerusaleum and the Holy Land, that would lead to war in 1854.
Once again, politics close to home would most likely trump the needs of business men. Especially, if the south, were even less prepared for war in 1850 (politically and militarily and socially) and Taylor's invasion met early success, as I tend to think.
If the our Civil war had started in 1851, it was still a few years before the Crimean war started so there a window for the southern secessionist to drag one of the European powers into our war, which the south would hopefully wish it would be the English.
The south was never really ready to wage war either in 1850 or in 1860. Their only true hope was intervention form another nation on their side, which was a long shoot in 1860 but in 1850 the shoot was just a little closer.
__________________
"States Rights are about States Wrongs" - Jesse Jackson
IMO, if Taylor had lived, the political crisis would have continued but war would have been a last resort' probably not occuring t until 1853 - 1855.
Napoleon came to power by a coup d' etat, in 1851, England and Europe now had another Napoleon on an imperial throne in France. England found that they could work with Napoleion, but they did not trust him.
Historically, Napoleon, in fact, did embroil England in one war and later, could have gotten them in another war with both Mexico and the USA.
Napoleon's obvious Imperial ambitions outside the borders of France and Europe, were signs of competition to the Imperial goals of England. The fact that this Napoleon was not military genius, was not known for sure, in the early 1850's.
IMO, if Taylor had lived, the political crisis would have continued but war would have been a last resort' probably not occuring t until 1853 - 1855.
Napoleon came to power by a coup d' etat, in 1851, England and Europe now had another Napoleon on an imperial throne in France. England found that they could work with Napoleion, but they did not trust him.
Historically, Napoleon, in fact, did embroil England in one war and later, could have gotten them in another war with both Mexico and the USA.
Napoleon's obvious Imperial ambitions outside the borders of France and Europe, were signs of competition to the Imperial goals of England. The fact that this Napoleon was not military genius, was not known for sure, in the early 1850's.
One of the things to think about, militarily, is that most of the South would have been unapproachable except by water.
No one could have based a campaign on RRs -- because there was no RR network to speak of in 1850 in the South. Nashville, for example, was isolated for months at a time by the rise and fall of the rivers. No Union force could have moved through the wilds of Tennessee except by the rivers -- and with the Cumberland and Tennessee prone to floods and droughts, movement would be very limited.
As a result, any campaign away from the the coast or Virginia would have to be either very small in forces or within a short distance of a major river. There would be no ironclads. Union building capacity in the West would be much less. Assuming they had heavy cannon, Rebel ability to block the Union at chokepoints would be much higher.
Essentially, this means no meaningful drive along the Nashville-Chattanooga-Atlanta-Savannah axis will be possible. So the Confederacy would be defending fewer approaches, and thus gain an advantage that way.
Population balances were probably closer, and the difficulty of moving and supplying would mean that actual battlefield odds might shift in favor of the Confederates.
Tim
__________________ "Let us, then, consider all attempts to weaken this Union, by maintaining that each state is separately and individually independent, as a species of political heresy, which can never benefit us, but may bring on us the most serious distresses."
Charles Cotesworth Pinckney of South Carolina, 1740-1824, Revolutionary War soldier, one of the authors of the US Constitution in 1787, speaking at the South Carolina Ratifying Convention in 1788.
Southern difficulties in 1850's, IMO, were in porportion to what prevailed in the 1860's, vis a vis the northern advantages.
Not just the Seaboard, the Mississippi was a vital trade artery even in the 1850's and although Armored gunboarts would have been unlikely early in the war, protedted steamboats, would have been quickly developed and there would have been many more river boat battles on the Mississippi, and it New Orleans were taken and it would have been an obvious targhet in 1850's and its loss would have strangled Southern commerce much more effectively in 1850 than 1860.
Although neither the north nor the south would have been as united as in 1860, as the party most subject invasion, greater unity was required from the south. The disaffected area's in the 1860's south would, IMO, have been even larger in 1850.
Both section's armies would necessarily be much smaller and fewer of them, but What industry was available, it was still mostly in the North.
IMO, there would have been no significant advantages accruing to the south from a war in 1850 than in 1860.
Southern difficulties in 1850's, IMO, were in porportion to what prevailed in the 1860's, vis a vis the northern advantages.
Not just the Seaboard, the Mississippi was a vital trade artery even in the 1850's and although Armored gunboarts would have been unlikely early in the war, protedted steamboats, would have been quickly developed and there would have been many more river boat battles on the Mississippi, and it New Orleans were taken and it would have been an obvious targhet in 1850's and its loss would have strangled Southern commerce much more effectively in 1850 than 1860.
Although neither the north nor the south would have been as united as in 1860, as the party most subject invasion, greater unity was required from the south. The disaffected area's in the 1860's south would, IMO, have been even larger in 1850.
Both section's armies would necessarily be much smaller and fewer of them, but What industry was available, it was still mostly in the North.
IMO, there would have been no significant advantages accruing to the south from a war in 1850 than in 1860.
Here's another thing to note: In 1850, Kentucky was much more of a "Southern" state Almost all trade went down the Ohio-Mississippi to New Orleans. But by 1850 RRs were beginning to reach the north bank of the Ohio, and immigrants were beginning to pour down the Ohio Valley as quick and cheap transportation from the East Coast became more and more available.
By 1860, trade and cultural ties are binding KY more and more to the East and North (just as they were binding the counties that became West Virginia more and more to the Pittsburgh region and the iron/steel industry there.) IIRR, the Baltimore & Ohio RR finally got across the mountains to the Ohio River in 1850 or 1851, tying the region even more into the economy of the non-South America.
A Virginia secession in 1850 might have had a better chance of retaining those counties, and KY might have been more likely to lean South. That would make for a substantial difference in strategic depth out West. Union passage down the Ohio would be difficult with KY against them. In the first year or two, it is hard to see where Union control on the upper rivers will come from.
This would also be before the mass immigrations following the revolutions in Europe. Cincinatti, St. Louis, and the area in between saw a large influx of Europeans who saw their allegiance as belonging to the central government, to the United States rather than to any individual state.
All of which makes war in Northern Virginia more likely (assuming they seceded).
Tim
__________________ "Let us, then, consider all attempts to weaken this Union, by maintaining that each state is separately and individually independent, as a species of political heresy, which can never benefit us, but may bring on us the most serious distresses."
Charles Cotesworth Pinckney of South Carolina, 1740-1824, Revolutionary War soldier, one of the authors of the US Constitution in 1787, speaking at the South Carolina Ratifying Convention in 1788.
I am not sure, I can agree that Ky was any anymore Southern in 1850 than in 1860. I think it unlikely that the hill people of the Appalachia's and the highlands of Ala. and Ga with those of NC were not any less Unionists in 1850 than in 1860
In any case, as I indicated in my last post, the Mississippi would most probably be the main invasion route south, in 1850. Although if the War lasted longer than I expect (2 to 3 yrs) it is likely that as northern steamboat production caught up with northern military needs, then the Tn and Cumberland might see major, but secondary, efforts, at least until New Orleans was taken.
Due to the deficiencies of transportation and manufacturing capacity, the north would have to parcel out it's (more) limited resources more carfully than the decade after.
A seaboard blockade and a major campaign Down the Mississippi to New Orleans being the focus of most of the wars active campaigning.(early in the war, anyway)
would seem the most logical and historical results of a war early in 1850.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
