I recently read in a history book that the delay of the civil war only helped the north and that if the south had acted fast they might have done better how true is this.
I don't think so.
Up till Fort Sumter, the civil war haddened started,
The South was organizing.
Travel was Unrestricted, the trains were still running across the border,
Northern companies were still delivering good to the south, [The first Confed Dollars were printed in New York] even some orders from northern Gun and Steel Manufactures where delivered.
Some New York and Boston Papers had started using a Foreign Byline for Southern News.
Fort Sumter was the last Federal Facility still in Union Hands, The others had been turned over in a mostly Peaceful transfer of authority.
Most of the North felt no urgency to starting the fighting.
All this Changed after Fort Sumter allowed Lincoln to gave his - The Rebels have attacked our Brave Men in Uniform- Speech
If you mean pure military victory, than I'd say yes, it'd be best for a rapid victory. The north had a huge population and industrial output compared to the south. I honestly sort of see the war as the north using kid gloves; had the Union used industry and manpower equal to the south in terms of percentage, the Southern armies would've been swept back rapidly and without any hope of recovery. The longer it takes for the South to win, the more Southerners are killed, the more the North gets to switch its industry to war footing, the more Northerners get used to using railroad transportation as a weapon... The war started with a slight Southern advantage. The longer the war lasts, the more that advantage overwhelmingly tilts towards the North. I just don't really see it happening, though. Too many Northerners, too few Southerners.
No I meant years before like in taylors administration
One must not forget though that a good number of people didn't want to fight against the South. Among other things, the 1862 New York draft riots come to mind.
If the war broke out right after the Mexican-American War, I could see the south at a huge advantage. Lots of Southerners with recent military experience, and standing volunteer units. The reckless headlong Southern charge would work a lot better with out rifles being issued to most units. Southern calvary would be able to charge headlong into Northern infantry units armed only with smoothbore muskets, without being slaughtered(the slower loading Kentucky rifles were nowhere near as deadly as those minie-ball firing ones).
I just don't see any POD that could cause it during the early 1850's.
In the anthology Alternate Presidents there are several scenarios posited in which the Civil War begins earlier. The most plausible one, IMO, is Fillmore getting elected in 1956 (Buchanan has a heart attack late in the game, throwing the whole political situation into disorder, so a bunch of people defect and vote for the Know Nothings).
The North gets more and more aggravated by a president who is both pro-slavery and pro-Union, along with being virulently anti-immigrant. Eventually, the north seceeds. The outcome of the war is left ambiguous.
Except if the North seceded, it's unlikely there would have been a war. The South would have let them go peacefully.
It was more New England and the Mid-Atlantic that left. The Midwest is still pro-Union, as is the Administration, and at the time Southern nationalism had not yet reached the fever pitch that it would climb to in 1859-1861.
Plus it's not just secession; the Northern states that do seceed try to conquer Pennsylvania, Maryland, Delaware, the Midwest, etc. There is a difference between, "Well, off you go then," and, "Well, off you go then. What's that? You want some of my land? Well I'm frightfully sorry, but I'm afraid you--Wait! What the hell are you doing? Give that back! That's mine!"
Well, if the Yankees secede and then start the war themselves, what can you do but kick some Yankee butt?![]()
True, however, because of the opposition the Union could not devote the same percentage of its resources to the war effort that the South could. It says something about how great the Union's material advantage was that they could so grossly outnumber the South in men and materiel despite having to fight with one hand tied behind their back in the hopes of placating the home front.Although the draft riots and opposition to the war certainly weren't negligible, ultimately the Union still had huge industrial and numeric advantages.
True, however, because of the opposition the Union could not devote the same percentage of its resources to the war effort that the South could. It says something about how great the Union's material advantage was that they could so grossly outnumber the South in men and materiel despite having to fight with one hand tied behind their back in the hopes of placating the home front.
Exactly; the only way the South could win in a long war was if they had allies to help make up the difference and/or if the North simply wasn't willing to pay the price in blood and money to re-conquer the South. Their best chance was to go for a quick win before the North's material advantages could have a significant effect.Indeed, and that's where my point lies. The demographics behind the war were so thoroughly one sided that there's no possible way the South would win in a long term military conflict. If they were able to bring Europe into the wa, or make a peaceful settlement with the North, it'd be one thing, but a normal war as OTL? Hell no, the South wouldn't have a chance.
I recently read in a history book that the delay of the civil war only helped the north and that if the south had acted fast they might have done better how true is this.
No I meant years before like in taylors administration
If the war broke out right after the Mexican-American War, I could see the south at a huge advantage. Lots of Southerners with recent military experience, and standing volunteer units. The reckless headlong Southern charge would work a lot better with out rifles being issued to most units. Southern calvary would be able to charge headlong into Northern infantry units armed only with smoothbore muskets, without being slaughtered(the slower loading Kentucky rifles were nowhere near as deadly as those minie-ball firing ones). I just don't see any POD that could cause it during the early 1850's.
The disparity between the North and South both in population and industrially was also less in 1850 (indeed, several Southern arms manufacturers who had supplied arms for the Mexican War and later went out of business during the Panic of 1857 were still operating in 1850). Even such things as the much reduced railroad development in both North and South (the amount of railroad mileage in both North and South in 1850 was less than 1/3 what it would be by 1861) would work in the South's favor...Union armies operating deep in the South have to be supplied, and in the OTL Civil War the Union pretty much depended on railroads to accomplish that. This would be much less of a handicap for the South, given that Southern armies would be, for the most part, operating on their home territory and much closer to their own supply bases.
Overall, the South's chances in 1850 were considerably better than they were in 1861.
Given that the Southern States seriously considered seceding during the crisis which culminated in the Compromise of 1850, it seems likely that if Henry Clay had died a bit earlier, and/or if the North had been a bit more insistent on passing the Wilmot Proviso, that a war could very well have happened in 1850.
I think that if things go as Wolfpaw suggests and the US elects Millard Fillmore instead of Ike in 1956 then we're really in trouble.![]()