CSA, earlier always better, later always worse?

It seems to be taken as a given in most ATLs that if some part of the slaves states secede by 1856 they will certainly succeed and if they secede after 1864 they will certainly fail.

A) Do you agree with this, at least during the 19th century?
B) Presuming no change in the Slave states (other than maybe Delaware), does this turn around once the Texas oil is found and a significant amount of the US war machine is fueled by it?
C) Would the addition of a Slave Holding Cuba (and possibly other Slave territories in the Caribbean) to the US significantly tip the balance?
 
It seems to be taken as a given in most ATLs that if some part of the slaves states secede by 1856 they will certainly succeed and if they secede after 1864 they will certainly fail.

A) Do you agree with this, at least during the 19th century?
B) Presuming no change in the Slave states (other than maybe Delaware), does this turn around once the Texas oil is found and a significant amount of the US war machine is fueled by it?
C) Would the addition of a Slave Holding Cuba (and possibly other Slave territories in the Caribbean) to the US significantly tip the balance?

1) No, at least not with any certainty. It is true that the earlier we're talking about, the better the odds are for the South to secede. For example, up until about 1848 the disparity in population and heavy industry between the North and South wasn't all that great, certainly nowhere near 3x that number as in the 1860s. However, to succeed the South needs to have a reason to leave (because of, or in spite of, slavery) be unified and all-inclusive; leaving out the Upper South means they'd probably still lose (making the Nullification Crisis as we know it a no-go unless some changes are made). Post-1864, I'd think that whatever legitimacy the region would've had would be gone by then, and even less likely to succeed without overt outside help.

2) You assume Texas would either exist, be part of the US, or side with the USA instead of the South. None of those factors are at all a given (although it's hardly impossible for Texas to stay in the union).

3) Cuba for whom? If we're talking about the South holding it, it depends on how strong their home-grown industry is. If they don't have any, Cuba's just gonna wither on the vine in the face of the USN. The "Union & Liberty" TL has Cuba being part of a Confederacy that is both IMO more "worthy" of existence (the war starting over a succession crisis in the White House, not Lincoln rising to the office) and has a stronger navy that can take advantage of the island as a forward base. However, this is far from a certainty.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Regarding POL, remember that the continental US

B) Presuming no change in the Slave states (other than maybe Delaware), does this turn around once the Texas oil is found and a significant amount of the US war machine is fueled by it?

Regarding POL, remember that the continental US is just that ... continental.

The oil boom in Texas actually came in AFTER - or was contemporaneous with - the oil boom(s) in Pennsylvania, Indiana, Kansas, Oklahoma, and California...

Spindletop was phenomenal, but it was not unique.

Great source on this is Yergin's The Prize...

Best,
 
1)However, to succeed the South needs to have a reason to leave (because of, or in spite of, slavery) be unified and all-inclusive; leaving out the Upper South means they'd probably still lose (making the Nullification Crisis as we know it a no-go unless some changes are made). Post-1864, I'd think that whatever legitimacy the region would've had would be gone by then, and even less likely to succeed without overt outside help.

This is the problem. The South seceded IOTL because it had become apparent that the North had grown economically dominant and would soon grow politically dominant as well. By the time there was cause to secede, it was too late for secession to succeed if the Union was willing to fight a war over it.
 
This is the problem. The South seceded IOTL because it had become apparent that the North had grown economically dominant and would soon grow politically dominant as well. By the time there was cause to secede, it was too late for secession to succeed if the Union was willing to fight a war over it.

The question becomes those timelines where the Political Domination occurs first, such as one in which Delaware goes Free and the Maryland senators aren't reliable.
 
Could the crisis of 1850 work? It nearly drove the states to blows OTL, and the south would still be able to fight with some form of parity. Railroad mileage is less than a third of what it was 1861, the latest wave of immigration has yet to properly start, and the rifled muskets that shredded wild southern charges OTL wouldn't be as well developed yet. That especially will move the tactical advantage in the south's favor.
 
Admittedly I know limited amounts about the American Civil War and it's run-up but what about President James Buchanan? As I understand it whilst he said that states didn't have the right to secede he also believed that the federal government didn't have to the legal right to stop them either. Is there any way to speed up the process that led to the declarations of secession to early on in his term of office? If the Confederate States of America have several years of semi-effective independence whilst he refuses to send in the military I would think that would help them. Or it could just see him impeached, I've no idea of the line of succession at that point or the personalities involved.
 
This is the problem. The South seceded IOTL because it had become apparent that the North had grown economically dominant and would soon grow politically dominant as well. By the time there was cause to secede, it was too late for secession to succeed if the Union was willing to fight a war over it.

Very true, although it should be noted that the combination of Northern political and economic dominance was hardly a fait accompli even in OTL, just a matter of good timing. The North wasn't deliberately looking to start a war after stacking the odds in their favor, it was simply good timing for them.

Have the North attempt to politically wrangle the South into submission before the boom in their industry (the 1820s-50s timeframe would do), and you have a scenario where the South has reason in their eyes to secede while the North lacks the tools to stop them as effectively as OTL.

@ggarner57, what "wild southern charges"? The rebel yell thing was an accompaniment to tactics used on BOTH sides of the war, which remained semi-Napoleonic for the most part. If any side was tactically more modern to our eyes, it was the Confederate Army (they tended to practice cover, concealment and fieldcraft better and more consistently than their Northern counterparts). I will grant that the North had more weapons since they had "teh faktoryz", but generally speaking both sides had access to similar technology at the shooter level.
 
Top