US Civil War in 1850

Tony Jones · Mar 29, 2008

If President Zachary Taylor had not died in 1850 it seems possible that he would have began a US civil war a decade earlier than in OTL. In this case the north and south would have been considerably more evenly matched than they were in OTL.

Does anyone have any ideas as to how likely this earlier civil war was, and perhaps more interestingly, if it did happen, how it might have turned out? Would the south have gained and kept its independance? What would this have meant for California, Texas and North America as a whole?

Also would the southern states necessarily have called themselve the CSA at this point? If not, what else might they have called themselves?

Lord Grattan · Mar 29, 2008

Why would he or his policies cause an earlier Civil War? Perhaps during his 4-8 years as President, a political solution could have been found to limit and slowly end slavery in the USA.

David bar Elias · Mar 29, 2008

Tony Jones said:
If President Zachary Taylor had not died in 1850 it seems possible that he would have began a US civil war a decade earlier than in OTL. In this case the north and south would have been considerably more evenly matched than they were in OTL.

Does anyone have any ideas as to how likely this earlier civil war was, and perhaps more interestingly, if it did happen, how it might have turned out? Would the south have gained and kept its independance? What would this have meant for California, Texas and North America as a whole?

Also would the southern states necessarily have called themselve the CSA at this point? If not, what else might they have called themselves?

Here's a timeline that deals with that scenario (I don't know if it was finished or not):

https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=50420&highlight=Zachary+Taylor

Electric Monk · Mar 29, 2008

As is usually brought up a civil war in 1850 is relatively beneficial to the South, given that their level of industrialization was much closer to the North than in 1860.

Assuming a comparable level of military expertise, one would expect the South to have a much higher chance of winning than in OTL.

Grimm Reaper · Mar 29, 2008

Another factor to consider is that one or more of the border states or even members of OTL's CSA may still see themselves as more 'Western' than 'Southern' which could make a difference.

Hierophant · Mar 30, 2008

A few thoughts

Winfield Scott is 10 years younger. He was a competant commader and it was him who came up with the strategy that eventually won the war.

I think theres a possibility that Taylor himself will be leading an Army, most likely over the protests of Congress. Perhaps the AotP (Army of the President) will drive into Virginia. Scott could lead his army down the Mississippi

I think there will be fewer people willing to secede especially with a southern slaveholder for president.

I honestly dont think whatever southern nation forms to be anywhere near as big or as long lived.

Ace Venom · Mar 30, 2008

While it is possible to present a scenario in which the ACW breaks out in 1850, it's impossible while Taylor is President. One of the reasons the secession crisis escalated like it did was because James Buchanan failed to uphold his Presidential oath. Taylor would not have hesitated to order the occupation of any state that seceded, so no secession would occur while he is still in charge. Millard Fillmore was more interested in compromise, but you could have a problem if a compromise is unable to be reached.

Mad Bad Rabbit · Mar 30, 2008

Ace Venom said:
While it is possible to present a scenario in which the ACW breaks out in 1850, it's impossible while Taylor is President. One of the reasons the secession crisis escalated like it did was because James Buchanan failed to uphold his Presidential oath. Taylor would not have hesitated to order the occupation of any state that seceded, so no secession would occur while he is still in charge. Millard Fillmore was more interested in compromise, but you could have a problem if a compromise is unable to be reached.

What if Fillmore and Taylor both die during the summer of 1850? The succession would either fall to to Senate President Pro Tempore William R. King (D-Alabama), or House Speaker Howell Cobb (D-Georgia), both of whom are pro-slavery. Also, under the Succession Act of 1792 there would need to be a presidential election in November 1850. Therefore, Whigs and Democrats would probably block any Compromise for the rest of the year (when hopefully someone less pro-slavery is in the White House).

Ace Venom · Mar 30, 2008

Mad Bad Rabbit said:
What if Fillmore and Taylor both die during the summer of 1850? The succession would either fall to to Senate President Pro Tempore William R. King (D-Alabama), or House Speaker Howell Cobb (D-Georgia), both of whom are pro-slavery. Also, under the Succession Act of 1792 there would need to be a presidential election in November 1850. Therefore, Whigs and Democrats would probably block any Compromise for the rest of the year (when hopefully someone less pro-slavery is in the White House).

This could very well be a scenario that could cause things to degenerate to a great degree. The issue of California is thus left up in the air as is the division of the Mexican Cession.

Grey Wolf · Apr 8, 2008

Some things to consider if war DOES break out

- Tensions with Britain

- Whether California decides to go it alone

- That there are a large number of recent veterans from the Mexican War, all in the prime of thier life and with up to date combat skills hewn in battle

Best Regards
Grey Wolf