Challenge: New Madrid Earthquakes happen in 1861-62

On the 16th of December 1811, the 23rd of January 1812 & the 7th of February 1812 three powerful earthquakes struck the area around New Madrid, Missouri. (for details go here.) These however were only part of a long term series of earthquakes that included aftershocks almost as powerful as the 'main' quakes.

At the time they occurred the region was sparsely settled and casualties were relatively few.

The challenge I lay down is this, what would the consequences be if the quakes had occurred in December - February 1861-1862, at time when the American Civil War was just starting?
 
I think you just shortened it by a year or two, although Virginia remains a major enough force to keep fighting the road to the heartland is wide open.

HTG (finally getting around to reading The Rift)
 
<Bump>

Thought I'd bump this one again, slighly surpised this did not get a larger response.

After all in 1861/62 U.S. Grant is in the quake zone.
 
If the quake did not happen in 1811, you might see much larger cities built near the confluence of the Mississippi and Ohio Rivers: a three state metropolitan area. Now, what about the strategic alignment of the region?

In OTL, both Kentucky and Missouri remained in the union. Now, ATL settlements in this area would likely have southern sentiments, perhaps pushing these border states to secession. Survivors would be displaced, but by the end of 1861 they would be out fighting for the CSA, changing the outcome of the civil war; and yes, shortening it.

Edit: We can call the new cities Mokyil. Analogous to Kansas City MO and adjacent Kansas City KS, there can be Mokyil, MO, Mokyil, IL, etc.
 
I will bump this thread because it provides a serious turning point for the civil war.

You have a large city at the confluence of the Ohio and Mississippi Rivers, on par with Memphis, New Orleans, Cincinnati, etc. Its sentiments will be southern.

Sure, an earthquake would be destructive in 1861. But the settlement changes and sentiments beforehand can very well make the CSA come out on top.
 
The earthquakes absence earlier may create an area more alligned with the south but It should be understood that most of the devestation would be southern. The Mississippi river would create huge lakes and other places damn up and then flood when they broke. This would really damage the South. It would also be an opportunity for the slaves to revolt.
 
The earthquakes absence earlier may create an area more alligned with the south but It should be understood that most of the devestation would be southern. The Mississippi river would create huge lakes and other places damn up and then flood when they broke. This would really damage the South. It would also be an opportunity for the slaves to revolt.

Yes, most of the damage would be in the south. But I assume that the quakes happen exactly 50 years later and the war is already in progress. The absence of quakes in 1811-1812 encourages heavy settlement where the rivers meet. At that time, paddleboats and big rivers were the elements of commerce.

St. Louis and Pittsburgh are built at river junctures. Louisville sits at a lock-and-portage point where the river drops in elevation. The presence of a large city near Cairo, Illinois changes the political landscape before the quake, as legislators in Jefferson City and Frankfort have greater pressure to secede.

So, if Missouri and Kentucky leave the union, the strategic damage to the north would be far greater than the earthquake damage would be to the south. Paddleboats can travel in surprisingly shallow water and rivers this size would soon cut new navigable channels. The rivers were passable after the OTL quake without much help from the Corps of Engineers.

As for the slaves, we must remember they were not educated and many fought for their masters, on behalf of the south. I doubt if a slave rebellion would be likely.
 
Top