what if Zach Taylor had not died in office?

[trice]

Originally Posted by OpnDownfall

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
...

There was little change in population in those counties. The population changes I am speaking of primarily affected the Kentucky counties along the Ohio and Mississippi vallies -- which were also generally the most populous in the state (with exceptions for a couple of areas.

Prior to 1850, most immigration into Kentucky (like most Southern states) came from below the Mason-Dixon line. In fact, by 1860, NJ was the only Northern state where more residents emigrated below the Mason-Dixon line than above it (and NJ had its own long history with slavery and enduring ties with the South, a constant ally of Southern causes in the Congress).

The 1848 revolutions in Europe and their aftermath brought waves of European immigrants, many of whom should be considered as refugess from political persecution and/or tyranny (i.e., rebels who lost). The were heavily German and tended to come in through the main US seaports of New York, Philadelphia and Baltimore, with New York being by far the biggest port. From there they produced big waves of immigration into the new lands being opened in the West.

The route they followed was largely dictated by the means of transportation, and the costs involved. If they went to New York or Philadelphia, they could travel to Ohio-Indiana-Illinois by train very cheaply and quickly. By 1850 this included railheads on the north bank of the Ohio at places like Cincinatti and points west.

At first, these RRs had taken people and goods south from and farm produce north to the Great Lakes cities, where they were shipped by boat to the Erie Canal and New York. Later, with the development of what would be called the New York Central and Pennslyvania Central RRs, direct rail transport to and from New York became popular. By 1850, there was no point in Ohio more than 25 miles from a RR. About 1850, the Baltimore and Ohio RR finally pushed over the mountains to reach the Ohio, opening even more connections to the East and Europe.

By 1850, this was starting to make major changes to the entire area. Where about 1820 almost all trade went down the Mississippi, it began to change drastically with the opening of the Erie Canal in the 1825. When the RRs reached down to the Ohio, they diverted trade from New Orleans because it was now cheaper and faster to get goods to and from New York by that route than by shipping downriver to New Orleans.

This tied KY more and more to the North. It also changed the population of the Ohio and Mississippi vallies from Cincinatti to St. Louis with a heavy influx of primarily German European immigrants. As you note, it didn't do much to change the Appalchian counties -- because little had changed there. Even a city like Nashville in TN was not connected to the RR networks until the very late 1850s.

Even after the B&O penetrated the region, that still connects more to the east and north than it does to the South. For example, in 1860 if you lived in the western part of Virginia, the fastest way to get to Richmond was to take the B&O to Baltimore and then sail south on the Chesapeake to the James River. That area became much more connected to Pittsburgh because of the Ohio River and the RRs -- which helps explain why they supported the Morrill Tariff in 1860 and separated from the rest of the state when they seceded.

Tim

[5fish]

I do not think the southern states would have seceded in 1850 while Zack Taylor was our President. He had already comforted the Southern leadership and let them know where and the government of the United States stood on the issue of secession and rebellion.

I get the impression the Southern leadership left the meeting understanding that any move toward secession would lead to Pres. Taylor to take action against them.

The southern states in 1850 did not have the "Fire Eater" going around fanning the flames of secession in the years leading up to 1850 unlike what happen prior years before 1861.

I do not think the southern people were propagandized yet into thinking secession was an viable option and victims of insensitivity towards slavery by Northern radicals.

I think in the end the Southern leadership would have capitulated to Pres. Taylor's demands. I also think Cuba may have come apart of America a few decades earlier as a consolation to the Southern leaders, instead of the Fugitive Slave act.

Maybe, War with Spain a few decades soon then when it did happen.

[OpnDownfall]

My scenorio assumes a war, would not occur until 1853 - 1855. Like 1855 thru 1860, war came by stages of political crises (action-reaction) to resulted in war.
If Taylor had lived and remained wedded to bringing the Mexican War territorial acquisitions into the Union as Free States, without a Territorial interregnum. It would have driven the South to secession (IMO), but not in 1850, the South just could and would not accept this.
So IMO the war would come only 5 or 7 years earlier than it actually did (if not later, it is entirely possible that the contest of will between the southern leadership and Taylor, would reach impasse around the 1854-55 Election Campaign, and war not occur at all, depending upon who was elected)
In any case, it is still unclear to me that the demographics of the Ky riverfront areas would have been significantly different over the 5 or 7 year difference with 1860 (we are not talking about generations or even decades)

[trice]

Originally Posted by OpnDownfall

My scenorio assumes a war, would not occur until 1853 - 1855. Like 1855 thru 1860, war came by stages of political crises (action-reaction) to resulted in war.
If Taylor had lived and remained wedded to bringing the Mexican War territorial acquisitions into the Union as Free States, without a Territorial interregnum. It would have driven the South to secession (IMO), but not in 1850, the South just could and would not accept this.
So IMO the war would come only 5 or 7 years earlier than it actually did (if not later, it is entirely possible that the contest of will between the southern leadership and Taylor, would reach impasse around the 1854-55 Election Campaign, and war not occur at all, depending upon who was elected)

That all sounds fairly reasonable. My only point would be that the closer it is to 1850, the more primitive the transportation/communication system and the fewer of the new immigrants in this area.

Originally Posted by OpnDownfall

In any case, it is still unclear to me that the demographics of the Ky riverfront areas would have been significantly different over the 5 or 7 year difference with 1860 (we are not talking about generations or even decades)

The population of KY increased from 982,405 to 1,155,684 (an increase of 173,279, or about 18%) in those 10 years. The number of foreign-born essentially doubled, accounting for about 15% of the increase. But the patterns of trade and the connections to the East and North changed much more.

Tim

[OpnDownfall]

Ironically, although castigated at the time by ardent secessionists the 1850 Compromise, the result of Taylor's death IMO, did serve the interests of secessionism, because the one item that was considered pro-south, a stricter enforcement Federal Slave Codes, served the purpose of polarizing northern public opinion, i.e. was this the opening wedge of a southern conspiracy to enforce slavery in all states?
At the same time, the southern slave oligarchy saw the obvious reluctance of the northern states to enforce or even assist in the enforcement of the new regulations, as proof that the north was, in effect, anti slavery and could not be counted on resist emancipation in all instances.
Over the decades, the nation was only drifiting into a war over slavery, but Taylor by his actions and by his death, the pace quickened. Both sections were now polarized and subject to radicalization.
Compromise is possible, if only one party to an argument is radicalized, but not if both parties are radicalized. That was the legacy of the 1850 Compromise, which resulted from Taylors death.