what if Zach Taylor had not died in office?

[rbenne]

Zach Taylor was a controversial president to put it mildly. When the 1850 compromise passed congress he sent it back with a veto, something he swore he would never do

He also answered calls to secession with threats of the noose stating he would start by hanging his own son in law, Jeff Davis.

In February 1850 President Taylor had held a stormy conference with southern leaders who threatened secession. He told them that if necessary to enforce the laws, he personally would lead the Army. Persons "taken in rebellion against the Union, he would hang ... with less reluctance than he had hanged deserters and spies in Mexico." He never wavered.

A short time later, he was dead, most likely from a form of cholera we now know, however at the time a lot of people thought he was poisoned.

His VP at the time, Millard Fillmore was a very different man, he signed the comprise of 1850 and averted war, for a while.

Now the what if….

No Cholera claimed Taylor and the rebellion began not in 1861, but in 1850, or perhaps 1851.

No rifled muskets, no Lee commanding the ANV, different Generals in the AOP.

Or would we have just let the south go?

[hoosier]

Judging from what you said about Taylor at the beginning of your post, it doesn't sound too likely that he would have just let the south go.

It's my feeling that the South lost the Civil War because they fought it too early. Their industrial and population base in 1861 was so much smaller than the North's that their hopes of winning a military victory were pretty well doomed from the start. Had they started a war in 1850 or 1851, my guess is that their prospects would have been no better and might even have been worse.

Actually, maybe the South never needed to fight a military war at all. Take a look at where the last few U.S. Presidents have come from, and you might conclude that the South has ultimately achieved victory.

[larry_cockerham]

A bit of an aside, but Zachary Taylor's son, Richard was a General who took command after John Bell Hood's resignation/firing from the Army of Tennessee in January 1865. Richard remained with N.B. Forrest in Alabama until war's end in Citronelle, Alabama (surrender) a few months later. Had Zachary lived, this young man might have had a bit more prominent role in the war.

[rbenne]

Interesting Larry; I didnt know about Richard. Imagine what it would have been like to have the US Presidents son a General in the Confederate Army.

Lincoln had enough problems with his inlaws.... this would have been interesting

[elektratig]

I'm reviving this old thread because I'm reading David Potter's "The Impending Crisis 1848-1861", which addresses these issues. Taylor proposed to admit California and New Mexico directly, i.e., without going through the Territorial stage, which meant as practical matter that they would be free states. In response to threats of secession, he made clear that "Whatever dangers may threaten [the Union] I shall stand by it and maintain it in its integrity." Taylor believed that Southern threats of secession would collapse in the face of firmness -- essentially a Jacksonian approach.

Potter believes that Taylor was playing a dangerous game. He suggests that Taylor and others did not understand the depth of "mounting disaffection of the South" that had been building since the introduction of the Wilmot Proviso. In short, Taylor's proposal, if pressed, might indeed have led to secession and war.

Potter also suggests that the Compromise of 1850 might well not have passed had Taylor not died in July 1850. Clay's "Omnibus Bill" approach to the Compromise was defeated in early August. But for the adroit maneuverings of President Fillmore (and Stephen Douglas), the Compromise might never have occurred. Potter gives the much-maligned Fillmore much credit for cleverly resolving a related dispute concerning the location of the Texas-New Mexico border, without which no compromise would have been possible.

Finally, Potter is not a military historian per se, but he spent most of his life studying this period and certainly makes clear that he believes that time was probably against the South and that it was well for the North that war was averted for another decade.

Potter's book is a classic and magisterial in its insights. Anyone interested in such topics should run -- not walk -- to his/her bookstore (or Amazon, or the library) and get it.

[unionblue]

Elektratig,

I am under the impression with all the Unionist sentiment in the Southern States during the 1850's, that Taylor would have forced the Southern secessionists to have backed down, just as Jackson had made them back down in the 1830's. I feel that if we had had a different President other than Buchanan we might not have had the problem of dumping the whole mess in Lincoln's lap in 1860.

I truly think Taylor would have stood by the Union and quickly put down any attempt at secession, maybe stamping out the fire for some time.

Unionblue

[elektratig]

UnionBlue,

Certainly, your argument is plausible. Would the South really have stuck together, or would a few objecting states have wound up isolated? The whole thing might have collapsed.

Nonetheless, it's hard for me to disregard Professor Potter's opinion. After stating the arguments and counterarguments, he concludes, "In my opinion, the evidence, on balance, indicates that by 1850 southern resistance to the free-soil position was so strong and widespread that if the Union were to be preserved, the South had either to be conciliated or to be coerced." His thoughts on the subject (The Impending Crisis pp. 117-120) are well worth reading.

[unionblue]

elektratig,

I just finished reading Professor Potter's book, The Impending Crisis, and you are correct, his thoughts on the subject are well worth reading. The book is excellent and well researched on the period leading up to the Civil War.

May I reccomend The Road to Disunion, Volume I, Secessionists at Bay, 1776-1854, by William W. Freehling? Although I cannot recall the specific pages, I seem to remember the issue of Southern Unionists presenting a real problem to the situation Professor Potter refers to above. I also read the next sentence in which he stated, "It is true that the disunionists in the South began to lose ground to the southern moderates before long before the Compromise was enacted, but I believe this was because compromise was confidently expected and the South distinctly preferred compromise to disunion."

I also would like to draw your attention to the following article about Southern Unionists to bolster my idea that they might have prevented a war during that time. If you can find it, Southerners Against Secession: The Arguments of the Constitutional Unionists in 1850-51, by James L. Huston, make for very interesting reading concerning how Southern Unionists blocked secessionists from their plans in the 1850's.

Thanks for your sources and insight.

Sincerely,
Unionblue

[elektratig]

UnionBlue,

Great minds think alike: I actually placed an order for the Freehling book the other day! I would have ordered it some time ago, except that the comments about the awkward writing style made me a little nervous. I like my history well-written; reading shouldn't be painful. I'm hoping the comments are overblown.

It doesn't respond directly to the original hypothetical, but I'm reading the one-volume version of Robert Remini's biography of Andrew Jackson and am reminded that even back in 1832-33 Old Hickory responded to the Nullification threat with a carrot (a bill to reduce tariffs) as well as a stick. Even though South Carolina stood alone, and although Nullification arose out of an issue less emotionally charged than slavery, and though Jackson was one mean SOB who tended to use threats and force rather than conciliation, even he was apparently concerned that the South Carolinians (led by Calhoun, who hated Jackson at that point) might be crazy enough to try to secede.

Seventeen years later -- and four years after the Wilmot Proviso seriously raised temperatures -- the situation was far more volatile.

[unionblue]

Elektratig,

I think you are going to be in one heck of a surprise when you get and read Freehling's book, especially on the acts leading up to, during and after the Nullification crisis. The core issue around nullification was slavery. At least according to Freehling's research and the documents he presents says it was. Even President Jackson, in a letter to a friend said it was about slavery. And the negotiations were mainly to the detriment of Calhoun and South Carolina with Henry Clay giving Calhoun a pretty severe beating, in a political sense, during the negotiations for 'reducing' the so-called offensive tariff.

Enjoy your read and let me know what you think of it.

Sincerely,
Unionblue