WI Zachary Taylor Lived?

President Zachary Taylor was elected President in 1849 for the Whig Party, the cousin of President Madison, and a very successful American military leader. He fought in the War of 1812, the Black Hawk War, the Seminole Wars, and the Mexican War. He was a moderate, a southerner, Virginian by birth, but was adamantly opposed to a southern rebellion. He is quoted as saying that if any state(s) rebelled against the Union, he would personally lead the army to destroy them.

From what I can gather, he was pretty much a badass, but he died prematurely in 1850, one year into his presidency, on a hot summer day in Washington from gastroenteritis.

So, I am curious, what if President Zachary Taylor had not died, fulfilled his presidency, and Millard Fillmore did not take his place?

How would his politics affect the US and the world further along?

Would he likely be re-elected?

How would he deal with the growing tensions between north and south?

And anything else you can think of?

by the way, he looked like a badass too.

come on guys, surely someone has thoughts on the matter

Had Taylor lived, we probably would have seen the Civil War break out in months. He'd be reelected because the war would still be going on. Despite being a slaveholder himself, he was unwilling to concede much of the new Mexican lands to the slave power - seeking to fast-track them on a popular sovereignty basis, which most believed would make them free territory. He said something to the effect that the whole nation had won the new lands, anf they would not be used for the benefit of part of it, which really upset the South; then Fillmore backpedals and reaches a "compromise".

Early confederacy under John Quitman, with Robert Toombs supporting?

I don't think we actually get a President leading in the field, despite the awesomeness that would entail.

I doubt, though, that he'd be issuing an Emancipation Proclamation, so we may have the South forced back into the Union without immediately destroying their institution. I also suspect this is early enough to derail the gold standard when convertibility is restored; we probably see bimetallism with resulting deflation in the late 1860s/early 1870s.

This is early enough that Britain might be willing and able to intervene on behalf of the Confederacy, although the odds remain against it.

I wonder if Santa Anna jumps into the pit? I can't imagine him allying with either side, but surely this would be an opportunity to get the lost lands back.

President Taylor seemed like a strong leader, i wonder how much the south would want to rebel against him, and how and if they are defeated, how much backlash are they going to get? you can bet Quitman would dance at the end of a noose.

How long might this war last? How bloody? This would be an old fashioned war fought in the same style that the Mexican War and earlier wars were fought, unlike OTL Civil War where emerging technology played a huge role.

I don't know if the British would side with an early confederacy (would it still call itself the CSA?) against Taylor. IIRC they seemed to like him after his compromise over the Nicaragua Canal issue. however, things can change.

I also wonder if a Southern Rebellion would consist of all the states it did. Would the border states go against him, and would Texas?

Surely Santa Ana would have a bone to pick with the USA somehow. This might lead to a very unstable, maybe more wild West?

Texas definitely would go against the US. That was what was starting the conflict - they'd sent out Texas Rangers to Santa Fe to enforce their claim, and Taylor was (IIRC) about to send the US Army against them with orders to do anything necessary to throw out the Texans. Many prominent Southerners had lined up behind Texas. Preserve Taylor, and I think you'd get a Civil War within a month.

Tennessee probably stays Union in the early TL; its OTL 1850 secession vote was very close, like 51-49, in favor of remaining in the Union. So they barely vote in favor of Union and Winfield Scott lands on them before they can rethink their position (probably imprisoning Nathan Bedford Forrest for sedition). Not sure about Missouri.

I think it would be highly comparable to the OTL civil war, actually. Fewer railroads and factories constructed in the north offset by slightly less support for the rebels, particularly in the border South (Taylor being a southern slaveowner himself helps).

They'd still call themselves the Confederate States of America. It was a nod back to the preConstitution government document, the Articles of Confederation (which many Southerners of the time still thought was a better idea).

Shawn Endresen said:

Tennessee probably stays Union in the early TL; its OTL 1850 secession vote was very close, like 51-49, in favor of remaining in the Union. So they barely vote in favor of Union and Winfield Scott lands on them before they can rethink their position (probably imprisoning Nathan Bedford Forrest for sedition). Not sure about Missouri.

I think it would be highly comparable to the OTL civil war, actually. Fewer railroads and factories constructed in the north offset by slightly less support for the rebels, particularly in the border South (Taylor being a southern slaveowner himself helps).

They'd still call themselves the Confederate States of America. It was a nod back to the preConstitution government document, the Articles of Confederation (which many Southerners of the time still thought was a better idea).

Click to expand...

i also doubt virginia would secede either. north carolina is questionable.

so who would lead the rebellion? who would military leaders on both sides be?

also, what do y'all think international response would be?

Would the rebelling South even be the Confederacy? Or would an earlier Civil War entail them having a different political system -- or at least a different name -- somehow?

MKN said:

Would the rebelling South even be the Confederacy? Or would an earlier Civil War entail them having a different political system -- or at least a different name -- somehow?

Click to expand...

Well, as was mentioned earlier, it is likely because many southern states preferred the Articles of Confederation.

However, I think it would be quite interesting to hear another name

If the Civil War happens in 1850 then under Taylor and Winfield Scott the US Army beats the Confederacy even more rapidly and brutally in a more Napoleonic War. More battles that are Blue and Grey Nashvilles and no Cold Harbors or Malvern Hills.

Instead General Scott provides the ironic case of a Southern general leading the "Northern" war.

Errnge said:

i also doubt virginia would secede either. north carolina is questionable.

so who would lead the rebellion? who would military leaders on both sides be?

also, what do y'all think international response would be?

Click to expand...

A joker in the deck is that Captain Grant is still a Captain in the regular Army, this before his resignation under a cloud for drunkenness. Taylor liked Grant when he saw him during the Mexican-American War, so Grant may rise earlier and much less painfully in a war that even more than IOTL will favor his type of aggressive maneuver war.

Winfield Scott is going to be the leading US commander in this war, while Jefferson Davis may well be the major CS commander (with a personal vendetta against President Taylor). Davis was a fairly progressive Secretary of War so he'd probably in all likelihood be a better general than he was a politician. Thomas same as IOTL will side with the Union, and due to this being a decade earlier than the real war, so will Stonewall Jackson.

Lee and a smaller part of eastern Virginia will side with the CSA analogue, though in this case you'd have the possibility of a pair of rival Virginia cliques (Lee v. Scott, Thomas, and Jackson). Given that Jackson was a leap and a bound as a strategist above Lee, Jackson may well curbstomp General Lee. Longstreet will likely be serving in the ATL Confederate army as well, so you might have the bizarre possibility (by OTL standards) of Thomas heading an Army of the Potomac with Jackson his strong right arm against Lee's Army of Northern Virginia with Longstreet *his* strong right arm......

Are you sure Lee would take the Confederate side and fight against the Union and Virginia?

danwild6 said:

Are you sure Lee would take the Confederate side and fight against the Union and Virginia?

Click to expand...

Yes. Part of Virginia even more than IOTL will be pro-Confederate, the pro-Union part will include the part of Virginia Tom Fool Jackson was from. I keep imagining Thomas and Jackson mopping the floor with Lee and Longstreet.....

Snake Featherston said:

Yes. Part of Virginia even more than IOTL will be pro-Confederate, the pro-Union part will include the part of Virginia Tom Fool Jackson was from. I keep imagining Thomas and Jackson mopping the floor with Lee and Longstreet.....

Click to expand...

But Virginia, itself, will still be pro-union most likely -- meaning I doubt the "CSA" will trust anyone from that state to lead their armies.

Plus, Lee's reason for fighting for the South IOTL was that he felt he had to side with his state -- if his state (proper) stays in the Union, with a fellow Virginian in the WH no less, he'd be likely to stay with the Union cause...

I expect Virginia and North Carolina would tread the same path as 1861...initially uninterested in secession, but joining the Confederacy as soon as bullets start flying. Lee goes where the state government of Virginia goes (and he's only a captain at the time anyway; not likely to be in command of much very quickly).

Jefferson Davis was the juniormost Senator at the time, appointed to fill a vacancy by death. He'd be happy to resign his Senate seat to lead troops, and I expect the Confederates would let him.

As for leaders - John Quitman, Robert Toombs and possibly George McDuffie (who's about to die but still alive at the moment). Among civilians; hard to guess off the top of my head who'd be leading the Confederate soldiers - the Johnstons, I suppose.

I don't think Virginians think of Taylor as "fellow Virginian". He lives in Louisiana. Just as Winfield Scott now lives in New Jersey.

John Fredrick Parker said:

But Virginia, itself, will still be pro-union most likely -- meaning I doubt the "CSA" will trust anyone from that state to lead their armies.

Plus, Lee's reason for fighting for the South IOTL was that he felt he had to side with his state -- if his state (proper) stays in the Union, with a fellow Virginian in the WH no less, he'd be likely to stay with the Union cause...

Click to expand...

Er......at this point the Tidewater's ties to the secessionists would be as strong as ever, West Virginia's OTL boundaries would just be actually viable, not an expensive investment rife with civil war within the bigger civil war as IOTL.

COuld Calhoun lead the CSA analogue in this scenario?

Kiljan Arlsan said:

COuld Calhoun lead the CSA analogue in this scenario?

Click to expand...

He very well might, he'd have the most prestige of the secessionist leaders. And like Davis be more moderate than Rhett and company. NVM. A possible alternative is someone more like Toombs or Cobb.

Calhoun died March 1850 in OTL. Bad luck there.

Kiljan Arlsan said:

COuld Calhoun lead the CSA analogue in this scenario?

Click to expand...

Maybe, but I doubt it. Calhoun would be 68 by the time the CSA rebels, and if the POD is Taylor not dying then Calhoun would already be dead (Calhoun died in March 1850, Taylor died in July).