WI: A Stronger Zachary Taylor Presidency.

Okay, while I know there is an absolute abundance of Civil War timelines I thought I just had to pose a question. What if President Zachary Taylor had been a stronger leader than OTL? What if he had not died of a stomach ailment (no Millard Fillmore, which means no Compromise of 1850). If there had either been, before the Compromise, a stronger Taylor position on issues such as California's application as a free state or that of New Mexico, would the issue of slavery in the Mexican Cession have been that intractable last straw that lead to Southern succession?

If it was an issue of Taylor staying alive would the slavery issue have come to the boiling point sooner? Would progressive, if not rather revolutionary individuals like Lincoln still emerge as important figures in shaping policy, not just those who were viewed as extremist rabble-rousers like William Lloyd Garrison?

Looking forward to hearing people's views on the matter.

HeavyWeaponsGuy said:

Okay, while I know there is an absolute abundance of Civil War timelines I thought I just had to pose a question. What if President Zachary Taylor had been a stronger leader than OTL? What if he had not died of a stomach ailment (no Millard Fillmore, which means no Missouri Compromise). If there had either been, before the MO Compromise, a stronger Taylor position on issues such as California's application as a free state or that of New Mexico, would the issue of slavery in the Mexican Cession have been that intractable last straw that lead to Southern succession?

If it was an issue of Taylor staying alive would the slavery issue have come to the boiling point sooner? Would progressive, if not rather revolutionary individuals like Lincoln still emerge as important figures in shaping policy, not just those who were viewed as extremist rabble-rousers like William Lloyd Garrison?

Looking forward to hearing people's views on the matter.

Click to expand...

I assume you meant the Compromise of 1850 -the Missouri Compromise was agreed upon in 1820.

First - The Missouri Compromise was several decades earlier; I think you're talking about the Compromise of 1850.

Second - Given that Taylor died just after he'd ordered Federal troops to Santa Fe to fight the Texas Rangers (who were supporting Texas' claim to everything northeast of the Rio Grande), and neither side was looking ready to back down, I think we'd see civil war within the year. The big question would be whether the rest of the South would back Texas up. Given they were upset with Taylor's stance on slavery, I think there's a reasonable chance they might.

Shogun said:

I assume you meant the Compromise of 1850 -the Missouri Compromise was agreed upon in 1820.

Click to expand...

Whoops, you got me there, in the process of writing about events beforehand I started going into a tangent about the Missouri Compromise but then forgot to change it back.

Evan said:

First - The Missouri Compromise was several decades earlier; I think you're talking about the Compromise of 1850.

Second - Given that Taylor died just after he'd ordered Federal troops to Santa Fe to fight the Texas Rangers (who were supporting Texas' claim to everything northeast of the Rio Grande), and neither side was looking ready to back down, I think we'd see civil war within the year. The big question would be whether the rest of the South would back Texas up. Given they were upset with Taylor's stance on slavery, I think there's a reasonable chance they might.

Click to expand...

Definitely, even though nobody really knew what he felt about anything in particular before he got elected, events of the time turned him into a staunch Unionist.

He had a ton of connections too, Jefferson Davis was his son-in-law as I recall.

Yes, early Civil War, with Kentucky clearly Union, and possibly Missouri and Tennessee as well. I would expect the Confederacy to fall apart sooner - John Quitman doesn't strike me as nearly as capable a man as Jefferson Davis, while the Union Army is initially commanded by Winfield m**********n' Scott. On the other hand, Taylor may attempt to micromanage the war, being a General himself. The 'us or them' mentality of the South is somewhat undermined by the fact that the President is a slaveholder from Louisiana, and he's still using anti-secessionist rhetoric worthy of Thaddeus Stevens (Taylor was very outspoken on the subject. Something like "On American soil, there are free Americans and slaves. You have chosen not to be free Americans."). The lessened railroad construction may hamper the Union, but not terribly, I think.

The largest potential problem would be Santa Anna, who probably sees this as a perfect time for revenge. Unfortunately for him, the Presidio in San Francisco has quite a cadre at the moment - Colonel Burnside commanding, Captain Hooker in command of cavalry, and Quartermaster Lieutenant William T. Sherman.

I've often wanted to see this done well.

Shawn Endresen said:

Yes, early Civil War, with Kentucky clearly Union, and possibly Missouri and Tennessee as well. I would expect the Confederacy to fall apart sooner - John Quitman doesn't strike me as nearly as capable a man as Jefferson Davis, while the Union Army is initially commanded by Winfield m**********n' Scott. On the other hand, Taylor may attempt to micromanage the war, being a General himself. The 'us or them' mentality of the South is somewhat undermined by the fact that the President is a slaveholder from Louisiana, and he's still using anti-secessionist rhetoric worthy of Thaddeus Stevens (Taylor was very outspoken on the subject. Something like "On American soil, there are free Americans and slaves. You have chosen not to be free Americans."). The lessened railroad construction may hamper the Union, but not terribly, I think.

The largest potential problem would be Santa Anna, who probably sees this as a perfect time for revenge. Unfortunately for him, the Presidio in San Francisco has quite a cadre at the moment - Colonel Burnside commanding, Captain Hooker in command of cavalry, and Quartermaster Lieutenant William T. Sherman.

I've often wanted to see this done well.

Click to expand...

Okay Winfield Scott getting a chance to fight the Civil War in his prime rather than when he's old and had the times pass him by would be a really damn cool thing. Could easily lead to a Winfield Scott ticket for the presidency, who knows the ripples that could create, might set a precedent for parties to find war heroes more often, who knows ultimately.

Heh, and Jefferson Davis was historically not that competent of a leader himself, the impression I got was that he was an exceptionally stubborn individual in the midst of a difficult system that desperately needed a strong, centralized government to coordinate the war effort which it couldn't really have when it had already rebelled against such a government. Government wise even if the South had won those would've been biting issues for a new nation, which ultimately had come to depend upon a one-crop economy in a way reminiscent of Saudi Arabia or other commodity-dependent states.

I can't see Santa Anna being a serious war-changing problem, that he would get involved in some way is almost assured but he'd already gotten busted down so badly in the Mexican-American War, I can't see why an administration lead by a man who had beaten him with an army commanded by another man who had beaten him would have that much trouble with a worse-off Mexican Army, would the people have stood for another costly war with a vastly superior military force. Hell I'd be surprised if you didn't get a few people agitating to take more of Mexico as a punishment, maybe Baja...

Either way, with two Mexican wars in recent memory I think in the long-run if France ever tried its little stunt with the Mexican Empire that the USA might not be so inclined to intervene, but again who knows if it would still happen in this timeline, Mexico might well be seriously destabilized if the USA goes far enough to invade a second time.