Civil War starting in 1850

[DuckNachos99]

I'm in the middle of writing a book that is an alternate history of the Civil War starting a decade early. The story starts with Zachary Taylor not dying in 1850, refusing to sign the Compromise of 1850 and the Southern states seceding in 1850/51. I imagine in this timeline, Virginia does not secede, Robert E. Lee fights for the Union, John Tyler becomes president of Sovereign States (alt Confederacy), John Brown becomes an officer in New York militia fighting for the Union, Commodore Perry captures New Orleans, and the war proceeds very differently. Militarily, no Minnie ball means war is slightly less bloody and does not favor the defense giving the North an advantage. Railroad infrastructure is less advanced in the North, giving the South an advantage, as does the less industrialization of the North and lower population than they had in 1861. Mexican War veterans fight on both sides (mostly South), giving armies more experience. North has far better military leadership in the form of Winfield Scott and Robert E. Lee and fewer states on both sides. Technologically, no ironclads, no repeating rifles, no rifled artillery, etc.

A few notes:
On the Union side, Winfield Scott leads the U.S. Army, while Lee leads the Army of the Chesapeake. On the Southern side, Jefferson Davis leads the Army of the Appalachia. Southern capital is Columbia, South Carolina. Symbol of the Sovereign States is the magnolia flower.

My reason for writing this thread is I'm kind of curious how everyone thinks this could play out. I was hoping to get some ideas and suggestions for alternate battles, units, events, etc. What states secede or remain with the Union?

 

[thomas aagaard]

I'm in the middle of writing a book that is an alternate history of the Civil War starting a decade early. The story starts with Zachary Taylor not dying in 1850, refusing to sign the Compromise of 1850 and the Southern states seceding in 1850/51. I imagine in this timeline, Virginia does not secede, Robert E. Lee fights for the Union, John Tyler becomes president of Sovereign States (alt Confederacy), John Brown becomes an officer in New York militia fighting for the Union, Commodore Perry captures New Orleans, and the war proceeds very differently. Militarily, no Minnie ball means war is slightly less bloody and does not favor the defense giving the North an advantage. Railroad infrastructure is less advanced in the North, giving the South an advantage, as does the less industrialization of the North and lower population than they had in 1861. Mexican War veterans fight on both sides (mostly South), giving armies more experience. North has far better military leadership in the form of Winfield Scott and Robert E. Lee and fewer states on both sides. Technologically, no ironclads, no repeating rifles, no rifled artillery, etc.

A few notes:
On the Union side, Winfield Scott leads the U.S. Army, while Lee leads the Army of the Chesapeake. On the Southern side, Jefferson Davis leads the Army of the Appalachia. Southern capital is Columbia, South Carolina. Symbol of the Sovereign States is the magnolia flower.

My reason for writing this thread is I'm kind of curious how everyone thinks this could play out. I was hoping to get some ideas and suggestions for alternate battles, units, events, etc. What states secede or remain with the Union?

The idea that the minnie made the war more bloody is a myth, there is simply no evidence to support that idea.

The advantage of a riflemusket is the ability for well trained marksmen to engage targets outside of 150yards.
Since there where very very few well trained men, and none of the two sides did anything serious to train their all their men in marksmanship, the typical combat range was around 100yards, well within the range of smoothbore muskets.

Also as long as it is possible to run away without being killed, the arms used for fighting is irrelevant. The one and only deciding factor is the moral of the two sides. (and here the soldiers on both sides had a rather impressive ability to stick around and keep fighting on the defensive, even when they where beaten)

Also in 1861 none of the sides had the ability to arm their men with percussion muskets without importing huge numbers of both modern and old muskets from europe. The reason Europe had that big a surplus was because of the change from smoothbores to riflemuskets. In 1850 Iam not sure that europe would have the same ability to arm both sides.. because they had not emplaced their own guns recently.
And the lack of steamships to transport them would also have made importing slower and les reliable.

This and the smaller population size and less developed infrastructure would result in much smaller armies.
(scott in 1861 only planned for a federal army of around 85.000 men. 25.000 of the regulars to beat the rebellion... totally misjudging the size of the conflict)

The lack of steamships also effect the Federal navy. It made keeping blockades going 24/7/365 harder and it made landbased fortifications much, much stronger.

All of this give the rebels an advantage.

I will go as far as questioning if the federal government would have the ability to keep sufficiently large forces in the field nad keep them supplied to suppress a rebellion if the general population in the south rebel.

They would be faced with many of the same challenges as the brits in during the AVI. As soon as the army gets a few days march away from a harbor or railhead, they become stuck because of lack of supplies.

 

[DaveBrt]

I'm in the middle of writing a book that is an alternate history of the Civil War starting a decade early. The story starts with Zachary Taylor not dying in 1850, refusing to sign the Compromise of 1850 and the Southern states seceding in 1850/51. I imagine in this timeline, Virginia does not secede, Robert E. Lee fights for the Union, John Tyler becomes president of Sovereign States (alt Confederacy), John Brown becomes an officer in New York militia fighting for the Union, Commodore Perry captures New Orleans, and the war proceeds very differently. Militarily, no Minnie ball means war is slightly less bloody and does not favor the defense giving the North an advantage. Railroad infrastructure is less advanced in the North, giving the South an advantage, as does the less industrialization of the North and lower population than they had in 1861. Mexican War veterans fight on both sides (mostly South), giving armies more experience. North has far better military leadership in the form of Winfield Scott and Robert E. Lee and fewer states on both sides. Technologically, no ironclads, no repeating rifles, no rifled artillery, etc.

A few notes:
On the Union side, Winfield Scott leads the U.S. Army, while Lee leads the Army of the Chesapeake. On the Southern side, Jefferson Davis leads the Army of the Appalachia. Southern capital is Columbia, South Carolina. Symbol of the Sovereign States is the magnolia flower.

My reason for writing this thread is I'm kind of curious how everyone thinks this could play out. I was hoping to get some ideas and suggestions for alternate battles, units, events, etc. What states secede or remain with the Union?

The 1850 railroad system would not have supported the very large armies seen in the '60's. Water transport would have been far more important.

 

[infomanpa]

Could have happened that way.

 

[Drew]

I will buy the book if it includes a lithograph of General Lee wearing a lobster bib.

 

[LibertyAndUnion]

If the North couldn't use railroads and industrialization as much as it did 10 years later, neither could the South. If the North couldn't sustain armies in the field as easily, neither could the South. I don't get your logic.

 

[A. Roy]

It's a fascinating scenario. Sounds to me as if you have substantial "world-building" to do in order to make it all feasible and believable. For it to work as a novel, it's got to have a somewhat limited number of main characters so the reader can engage with the story. Who would they be? Some of the big cheeses you mentioned, or some fictional average-joe soldiers and civilians?
ARB

 

[DuckNachos99]

It's a fascinating scenario. Sounds to me as if you have substantial "world-building" to do in order to make it all feasible and believable. For it to work as a novel, it's got to have a somewhat limited number of main characters so the reader can engage with the story. Who would they be? Some of the big cheeses you mentioned, or some fictional average-joe soldiers and civilians?
ARB

Sort of a mixture of fictional, but mostly nonfictional characters. So far, I have Henry Clay, John Brown, Jefferson Davis, Robert E. Lee, Mathew C. Perry, Winfield Scott, Fredrick Douglas, and Wade Hampton II, plus a few fictional ones. I plan on adding John C. Fremont and William Seward as candidates in the 1852 election, but haven't gotten that far into writing it.

 

[DuckNachos99]

I will buy the book if it includes a lithograph of General Lee wearing a lobster bib.

Upon reading your message, I realized the world needs lithographs of Robert E. Lee wearing a lobster bib. No longer, for I have created this:

 

[Pollaco]

You mentioned the Southern Capital being in Columbia.Any mention of who is in the Cabinet?

 

[DuckNachos99]

You mentioned the Southern Capital being in Columbia.Any mention of who is in the Cabinet?

Haven't decided yet. John Tyler is president, not sure who else could fill his cabinet. Maybe Howell Cobb for VP. That's one of the reasons why I posted this was to get suggestions for that sort of thing.

 

[Pollaco]

John C.Calhoun lived until March of 1850.He'd be a logical choice for a cabinet post,maybe? He was up in age.

 

[DuckNachos99]

John C.Calhoun lived until March of 1850.He'd be a logical choice for a cabinet post,maybe?

He would have been my first choice for president, but he died before the story really got started.

 

[Pollaco]

Wasn't Claude Minie's invention in 1848?

 

[DuckNachos99]

Wasn't Claude Minie's invention in 1848?

I believe so, but most rifles that fired them weren't adopted until the mid 1850's.

 

[Pollaco]

I would think lack of the telegraph would have an effect.

 

[thomas aagaard]

If the North couldn't use railroads and industrialization as much as it did 10 years later, neither could the South. If the North couldn't sustain armies in the field as easily, neither could the South. I don't get your logic.

If there are no soldiers in the field, then the local (white) population in a area decide if they are loyal to one or the other political power.

So if the population in an area rebel then the government need to keep a military force in the area to suppress that rebellion.
That was the issue faced by the British. The moment they moved out of an area the rebels took back control by default because the rebels had control over local authorities and the militias.
And we see the same recent conflicts the US (and Denmark) have been involved with. The inability to keep control outside the major cities.

Lack of infrastructure usually hurt the government forces more than the rebels.

 

[Fairfield]

If not agreeing to the Compromise of 1850 entailed no Fugitive Slave Act, worked-up popular fervor in the north might have been limited to abolitionists. The attitude of "good riddance to bad rubbish" (as was the case when Maine wished to separate from Massachusetts) might have prevailed. OTOH, States Rights mightn't have become much of an issue in the South and might have remained a mainly New England concern.

 

[USS ALASKA]

https://railroads.unl.edu/views/sources/1850%20Expansion.jpg

HTHs,
USS ALASKA

 

[USS ALASKA]

Virginia does not secede...

...so Virginia's Tredegar Iron Works / coal / iron ore / agriculture products / salt / potassium nitrate are removed from this earlier Confederacy's logistical support.

Cheers,
USS ALASKA