HUH? 1850=quick CSA defeat?

[tom]

From UCHRONIA:
Borden, Morton. "1850: What If the Compromise of 1850 Had Been Defeated?"
Divergence: 1850 CE
What if: Zachary Taylor did not die in July 1850, and blocked Clay's great compromise.
Synopsis: The Civil War would have started 10 years early with Texas's invasion of New Mexico and ended in a quick southern defeat, but slavery would have continued.

Published: In Borden and Graham's Speculations on American History, q.v.


The North is deprived of over a decade of growth vis-a-vis the South, yet wins a quick victory when OTL it took over four years. Then we say "Oh well, just keep the slaves."
Anybody know anything about this article?

[Amerigo Vespucci]

Well, it makes sense if you think about it. The vast majority of industrialization and railroadization that took place in the South prior to the ACW took place in the 5-10 years before the war itself. There would be very little, if any railroad track at all in the CSA, the Tredegar Iron Works would be miniscule, Harpers Ferry wouldn't provide the CSA with its heavy machinery, and so on.

As for the slavery issue, I imagine that a compromise would be worked out... the South, which didn't want to give up slavery at all, would have been forced into a program of gradual emancipation, rather like the GoTS scenario and the plan of the Empire of Brazil. Also to consider in a war in 1850 is the fact that there isn't a Republican party. That means no radical Republican 'copperheads' to force the war to continue to the point of immediate emancipation. You'll have a lot less slaughter on the battlefields as well, without the Minie ball and rifled musket in wide circulation, and this would lead perhaps to a southern belief that they weren't really defeated because they weren't beat into the ground as in OTL's ACW. This means that they could see themselves hanging on to slavery, unlike OTL.

[robertp6165]

Originally Posted by Amerigo Vespucci

Well, it makes sense if you think about it. The vast majority of industrialization and railroadization that took place in the South prior to the ACW took place in the 5-10 years before the war itself. There would be very little, if any railroad track at all in the CSA, the Tredegar Iron Works would be miniscule, Harpers Ferry wouldn't provide the CSA with its heavy machinery, and so on.

Well, actually that's not quite true. The Confederacy was actually in pretty good shape in 1850. The Harpers Ferry Arsenal (where the Confederacy got it's musket and rifle-making machinery in 1861) had been in operation since around 1800. So the Confederacy would still have had that machinery. Tredegar Iron Works was founded in 1843, and it's primary business since inception had been producing cannon and gun carriages for the U.S. military. It would have been a simple matter to ramp up production just as they did in 1861. There were other arsenals (such as the Palmetto Arsenal in South Carolina) in other Southern States prior to the war which produced weapons for the volunteer troops in the Mexican War. Many of these had gone out of business by 1861, but most were still operating in 1850. So the ability of the South to produce arms for itself in 1850 might actually be more than it was in 1861. It is true that there was little railroad development in the South by 1850 (although the first railroads built in the South date to the 1830s, so there definitely were some railroads there)...but the same was then true of the North, as well. The total mileage of railroad track in the United States, North and South, was less than 9,000 miles in 1850. This may sound like a lot, but to compare, the total track mileage in 1860 was over 30,000 miles. In 1850, this track mileage was composed of small, unconnected lines, widely dispersed, not very useful for military purposes. By 1860 there were several continuous lines which afforded the ability to move troops and supplies over great distances very rapidly. So lack of railroads is not going to be that big a disadvantage for the South. Indeed, the lack of railroads might actually be a plus for the South...in the OTL war, the Union depended on captured Southern railroad lines to enable it to supply it's armies as they operated deep in the South. Remove that ability, and the Union armies have some major problems.

So, all in all, I think it is a bit rash to posit that the South would have had less ability to defend itself in 1850 than it did in 1861. In some ways, it would have been better prepared, and the North's advantage would have been far less in 1850 than it was in 1860.

[Amerigo Vespucci]

Remember, though that Harper's Ferry was a Union military base, and if that doesn't fall to the CSA in the early years of the war, yielding up the machine tools needed to run a war economy, the CSA can't build the weapons it needs. Another thing to consider is that the Atlanta gunpowder facilities weren't build until 1853, IIRC, and so that's another million pounds of gunpowder that the CSA won't have.

[David S Poepoe]

Originally Posted by Amerigo Vespucci

That means no radical Republican 'copperheads' to force the war to continue to the point of immediate emancipation.

Well, I'm afraid that your absolutely wrong here. The 'Copperheads' was a nickname that the Republicans gave to the Peace Democrats. These Democrats were friendly towards the Confederacy and were angered by Lincoln's suspension of the Constitution in some areas and the issuance of the Emancipation Proclamation, which changed the war from one of Union to one of the abolition of slavery. The Copperheads did not favor emancipation.

[Amerigo Vespucci]

You're right. I couldn't remember which was the euphemism used for the peace republicans and which one was the one used for the war Republicans. I figured I had a 50-50 shot. What's the correct term?

[robertp6165]

Originally Posted by Amerigo Vespucci

Remember, though that Harper's Ferry was a Union military base, and if that doesn't fall to the CSA in the early years of the war, yielding up the machine tools needed to run a war economy, the CSA can't build the weapons it needs. Another thing to consider is that the Atlanta gunpowder facilities weren't build until 1853, IIRC, and so that's another million pounds of gunpowder that the CSA won't have.

Well, if Virginia secedes, the Harper's Ferry Arsenal will fall to the Confederacy, just as it did in OTL. And there are other arsenals (operated by various States) in the South as well, as mentioned earlier, which were open in 1850 but closed by 1861. So the South probably has more means in 1850 to produce weapons than it did in 1861. As far as gunpowder goes, there was no gunpowder works in Atlanta. You are probably (based on the amount of gunpowder you are quoting) thinking of the Augusta, Georgia gunpowder factory. This actually was created from scratch by the Confederate Niter Bureau under Colonel Gabriel Rains in 1862-1863. The South should be able to put together something like it in 1850. And the blockade, if one is imposed, might not be as effective or as easily imposed in 1850, either...the North is also 10 years behind on it's industrialization from what it had in 1861 as well. So the South might very well be able to import what it needs in the interim.

[robertp6165]

Originally Posted by Amerigo Vespucci

You're right. I couldn't remember which was the euphemism used for the peace republicans and which one was the one used for the war Republicans. I figured I had a 50-50 shot. What's the correct term?

War Republicans were called "Radical Republicans" or "Black Republicans."

[tom]

OK. Let's get this one way or another:
THE EARLIER THE AMERICAN CIVIL WAR STARTS, THE BETTER FOR THE SOUTH; THE LATER IT STARTS, THE BETTER FOR THE NORTH.
Is this a true statement or not?

[wkwillis]

The South was constantly falling behind in the 1850's. It was getting to be a national joke. The North was moving fast into the future. So the South would have had a much better relative strength in 1850 than in 1860. Also, the transportation situation was much less advanced in 1850 than in 1860, handicapping invasions and army support by the Union. Also, California was much less firmly Northern, the upper tier states like Minnesota were less developed, etc.