What would happen to American politics if the Civil War started in 1850-1851?

Assuming there was no compromise of 1850, what changes politically about the USA and CSA? Who are the new presidents? Does this butterfly away Lincoln, Johnson, Buchanan, and Grant? Is Jefferson Davis still the presumptive leader of the CSA?

Do more slave states join the CSA since the civil war is happening earlier and under different leadership?

I have a lot of questions, and I'd like the community's help with this.
 
I feel like the border states sans Delaware would definitely declare for the Confederacy in this timeframe due to high tensions and anger over Northerners declaring the recent Mexican War a southern plot to gain more land for plantation slavery - it isn’t about the UNION like in the 60s, but SLAVERY and SOUTHERN LIFE, which affects Maryland, Kentucky, Missouri, even *West Virginia. Heck, even *New Mexico and *Arizona may be more easily claimed in their entirety by the CSA here.
 
I should say far more explicit about slavery, basically, since war opposition to the Mexican War was concentrated in the most abolitionist portions of the North and the Compromise of 1850 had severe debates on extending slavery's limits, and the slavery issue was being openly, hotly debated at this particular point.

By contrast, seceding in 1861 over a fair and democratic election gave the CSA a certain stench of rank selfishness and disloyalty to American values in general (and yeah, I know oh irony re: slavery, but this is an era where republicanism was still one of many government/value systems across the world versus monarchism etc. etc.).
 

Edward IX

Banned
I don't think Jefferson Davis would be the President of the CSA (look for him to get some sort of Military command.) He rose to prominence as Secretary of War in the Pierce administration. John C. Calhoun died in 1850, but if you could have him avoid TB and live past 66, he would be a good candidate.

You would have a totally different war from a political view point as "Bleeding Kansas" has not happened, no John Brown raid, lots of things.

It would be a different Military situation. No Minie ball, rifled Artillery, iron clad shipping etc. Robert E Lee, Stonewall Jackson, etc are either Jr. Officer's or unknown's. The most you hear from Lincoln is maybe as a Captain of a volunteer company. A very different war, which I think is a much shorter war, which results in a Southern victory but, in a weird way. Like I think Texas would quickly leave to be it's own Country again and other States quickly joining the Union again.
 
I don't think Jefferson Davis would be the President of the CSA (look for him to get some sort of Military command.) He rose to prominence as Secretary of War in the Pierce administration. John C. Calhoun died in 1850, but if you could have him avoid TB and live past 66, he would be a good candidate.

You would have a totally different war from a political view point as "Bleeding Kansas" has not happened, no John Brown raid, lots of things.

It would be a different Military situation. No Minie ball, rifled Artillery, iron clad shipping etc. Robert E Lee, Stonewall Jackson, etc are either Jr. Officer's or unknown's. The most you hear from Lincoln is maybe as a Captain of a volunteer company. A very different war, which I think is a much shorter war, which results in a Southern victory but, in a weird way. Like I think Texas would quickly leave to be it's own Country again and other States quickly joining the Union again.

So you're saying John C. Calhoun could be president if he didn't get TB?

Could it not be a longer war? Why would it be shorter?
 
I feel like the border states sans Delaware would definitely declare for the Confederacy in this timeframe due to high tensions and anger over Northerners declaring the recent Mexican War a southern plot to gain more land for plantation slavery - it isn’t about the UNION like in the 60s, but SLAVERY and SOUTHERN LIFE, which affects Maryland, Kentucky, Missouri, even *West Virginia. Heck, even *New Mexico and *Arizona may be more easily claimed in their entirety by the CSA here.

I think the exact opposite is the case. The reason that the South seceded in 1860-1 was that a (virtually) all-northern and explicitly anti-slavery party (at least in the sense of opposition to any more slave states) had won the White House. It's really going to be hard to demonize Fillmore the way Lincoln was demonized. He is part of a bisectional party, the Whigs, for which millions of Southerners voted. He had said nothing about putting slavery in the course of "ultimate extinction." Moreover, he was known as a rival of Seward within the New York Whig party, and that by itself was enough to get him considerable southern support at the Whig national convnetion in 1848.

If despite having a reasonably friendly president in the White House, some Deep South hotheads decided to secede, they would be more isolated from the rest of the South than in 1860-1. And if war developed, Fillmore would be even more emphatic than Lincoln that it was in defense of the Union, not to attack slavery.

(The idea of Delaware seceding in 1850 is particularly bizarre. As recently as 1847 a gradual emanicaption bill had passsed the Delaware state house of represntatives--and was only rejected by the state senate by one vote. John Clayton, a Delawarean, was a notable moderate on slavery; indeed, Michael Holt notes in *The Rise and Fall of the American Whig Party* that "Prior to his inclusion in Taylor's cabinet, Clayton had been the only southern Whig senator ever to cast a vote for the Wilmot Proviso." Calhoun stated in 1850 that it was doubrful that Delaware could be considered a southern state any longer. https://books.google.com/books?id=8ikKAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA235)
 
Oh I should've worded it better, I'm very well aware Delaware was basically a "southern" state only by virtue of slavery and was Pennsylvania Lite in every other metric of culture, and if I'm remembering right, a large chunk of slaves were right by or at least pretty close to Maryland's eastern shore border.
 
I think the exact opposite is the case. The reason that the South seceded in 1860-1 was that a (virtually) all-northern and explicitly anti-slavery party (at least in the sense of opposition to any more slave states) had won the White House. It's really going to be hard to demonize Fillmore the way Lincoln was demonized. He is part of a bisectional party, the Whigs, for which millions of Southerners voted. He had said nothing about putting slavery in the course of "ultimate extinction." Moreover, he was known as a rival of Seward within the New York Whig party, and that by itself was enough to get him considerable southern support at the Whig national convnetion in 1848.

If despite having a reasonably friendly president in the White House, some Deep South hotheads decided to secede, they would be more isolated from the rest of the South than in 1860-1. And if war developed, Fillmore would be even more emphatic than Lincoln that it was in defense of the Union, not to attack slavery.

(The idea of Delaware seceding in 1850 is particularly bizarre. As recently as 1847 a gradual emanicaption bill had passsed the Delaware state house of represntatives--and was only rejected by the state senate by one vote. John Clayton, a Delawarean, was a notable moderate on slavery; indeed, Michael Holt notes in *The Rise and Fall of the American Whig Party* that "Prior to his inclusion in Taylor's cabinet, Clayton had been the only southern Whig senator ever to cast a vote for the Wilmot Proviso." Calhoun stated in 1850 that it was doubrful that Delaware could be considered a southern state any longer. https://books.google.com/books?id=8ikKAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA235)

This raises an interesting question with regard to Fillmore. He only served until 1853 before being "replaced" as a candidate by Winfield Scott. Could he successfully run for office and win a campaign in such a TL?
 
A lot fewer Irish, German and Scandinavian emigrants would have been around in 1850-51 as well. Also the big OTL Northern advantage in railroad mileage, industrialization and urbanization would have been much less.
 

Edward IX

Banned
So you're saying John C. Calhoun could be president if he didn't get TB?

Could it not be a longer war? Why would it be shorter?
Calhoun died in 1850 of TB. I think if had lived he is the obvious choice to lead the new Country. The man was a ardent secessionist (as well as a unpleasant person.) Going back to when he was Jackson's Vice President he had problems with being loyal to the idea of Union.

I suspect it would be a shorter war for a couple of reasons. The military technology was not there to make it what happened 10 years later. As some one pointed out, the rail roads were not there, the casualties would not be near what they were 10 years later. Finally, so much happened in the 1850's to engender hatred in Country to cause it to be a struggle to the death.

You just have a different war in 1850. It would be a war fought like the Mexican-American war, with basically the same people. You also have issues like tariff's being a legitimate reason for the South to be angry. The abolitionist movement was no where as strong as it was 10 years later. Just to restate what I said, so much happened in the 1850's to make sure it was a nasty fight to the death.
 
Winfield Scott would lead the Union Army. He was just fresh off his magnificent triumph in Mexico City. And only the deep South, I suspect, would secede, and the Upper South would not.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
Which southern states would have been willing to secede at this time, and which ones would hesitate? And would any that went secessionist after Fort Sumter and the federal call for volunteers tolerate such a call by President Fillmore? Could we have a loyal Virginia tolerating federal suppression of South Carolina?
 
Which southern states would have been willing to secede at this time, and which ones would hesitate? And would any that went secessionist after Fort Sumter and the federal call for volunteers tolerate such a call by President Fillmore? Could we have a loyal Virginia tolerating federal suppression of South Carolina?

I could see the deep south seceding, followed by Texas and Virginia.
 
The core of the cotton states plus North Carolina. Virginia and Kentucky would be on the fence as would Tennessee and Arkansas. And could fall either way me personally I see Virginia and Tennessee succeeding on close contested votes. Kentucky and Arkansas if it looks like the CSA will win. Texas will either stay union or go its own way Sam Houston has more political clot in 1850 and he was extremely pro union

The CSA will not get Arizona in this TL. They are going to be a gulf of Mexico and Caribbean Sea power. I'd look for more William Walker type stunts in Central America and possibly (hear me out) African colonies so they can get around the international slave trade ban
 
I think that one question to be asked is: Is Fillmore even president in this case? Maybe the POD is that Taylor survives and bungles the compromise?
 
Top