Civil War One Generation Earlier

[Grand Admiral Cho]

What if the Civil War had broken out in the 1830s?

I have always contended that 60-65 War was fought a generation too late for the Southern States to win. If they had followed through and left the Union in the Nullification Controversy, Andy Jackson may have lead the Regular Army South, but the North did not have the wherewithal to win like they did in 65. A war in the 1820's would have been a quagmire for Jackson. The North did not have the manufacturing base, railroads and telegraphs, and most importantly California and Nevada's gold and silver. Further, the Mexico still controlled Texas, making an effective blockade problematical. But on the bright side for the North, Winfield Scott was still vigorous and able to take the field. And, the South did not have the generals and officer corps it would later have for its Army.

[Straha]

Mexico today would include California, Arizona, Utah, half of colorado, half of new mexico.

The CSA would be to the south of the US and have it's southern/western border be the rio grande.

[robertp6165]

What if the Civil War had broken out in the 1830s?

I have always contended that 60-65 War was fought a generation too late for the Southern States to win. If they had followed through and left the Union in the Nullification Controversy, Andy Jackson may have lead the Regular Army South, but the North did not have the wherewithal to win like they did in 65. A war in the 1820's would have been a quagmire for Jackson. The North did not have the manufacturing base, railroads and telegraphs, and most importantly California and Nevada's gold and silver. Further, the Mexico still controlled Texas, making an effective blockade problematical. But on the bright side for the North, Winfield Scott was still vigorous and able to take the field. And, the South did not have the generals and officer corps it would later have for its Army.




Some interesting population statistics from the 1830 Census (http://mapserver.lib.virginia.edu/php/start.php?year=V1830)...

TOTAL POPULATION OF THE ENTIRE U.S.A....12,866,020

TOTAL POPULATION IN STATES WHICH SECEDED IN OTL...4,421,369 (not including Texas, which was not part of the USA at that time, or Florida, which was still a Territory).

TOTAL IN BORDER STATES (Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky, and Missouri): 1,352,160

GRAND TOTAL FOR SLAVE STATES, INCLUDING THE BORDER STATES: 5,773,529

TOTAL FOR OTL UNION STATES, NOT INCLUDING THE BORDER STATES: 7,092,491

SLAVES IN NORTHERN STATES...3,568
SLAVES IN BORDER STATES...296,595
SLAVES IN SOUTH...1,708,880

FREE BLACKS IN NORTHERN STATES...137,529
FREE BLACKS IN BORDER STATES...74,279
FREE BLACKS IN SOUTH...100,795

FREE WHITE POPULATION OF THE OTL SECEDED STATES...2,611,694
FREE WHITE POPULATION OF OTL UNION STATES...6,951,394
FREE WHITE POPULATION OF BORDER STATES...981,286

By comparison, in 1860...

26,690,781 TOTAL FREE WHITES IN U.S.A.
5,449,462 FREE WHITES IN OTL SECEDED STATES
18,533,759 FREE WHITES IN OTL UNION STATES
2,707,560 FREE WHITES IN BORDER STATES

The Free White population of the OTL seceded States was just 29% of the Free White population of the OTL Union States (minus the Border States) in 1860. In 1830, the disparity was much less, with the free white population of the OTL seceded States being 37% of that for the OTL Union States (minus the Border States). If the Border States can be brought to secede in 1830, that percentage jumps up to as much as 51%.

So the Union still has a large advantage over the secessionist states either way, but not nearly as much as in 1861.

Also, the North is not nearly as industrialized in the ATL...the big industrial boom there was only just beginning... and the railroads which supported the Union war effort in OTL are not there (even as late as 1840, there were less than 3,000 miles of track nationwide, compared to well over 30,000 in 1860). The Union will find it much more difficult to keep its armies supplied while they operate in the Deep South, and occupying an area as large as the South will be problematic, to say the least.

So, overall, the South would have been much more likely to succeed if it took the plunge and seceded in the late 1820s or early 1830s.

As to the question of leadership, we really don't know who would have come to the fore for the South had the secession happened in say, 1830. Possibly you see General Edmund Pendleton Gaines (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmund_P._Gaines) go South and lead the Southern army facing Andy Jackson and/or Winfield Scott. He had recently quarrelled with Andy Jackson, and so this might be more likely because of that, as well.

Another officer who might end up with a high command in the Southern army is Zachary Taylor. Although Taylor was elected President on the Whig Ticket in 1848, he privately opposed the Whig's economic program which included high protectionist tariffs and government subsidies for internal improvements. So a war over tariffs might well lead him to follow his state out of the Union. He was already a Colonel in 1830 and, if OTL is any guide, was likely to be among the first round of generals selected for the Southern army as a result, if he goes South.

[Grand Admiral Cho]

Some interesting population statistics from the 1830 Census (http://mapserver.lib.virginia.edu/php/start.php?year=V1830)...

TOTAL POPULATION OF THE ENTIRE U.S.A....12,866,020

TOTAL POPULATION IN STATES WHICH SECEDED IN OTL...4,421,369 (not including Texas, which was not part of the USA at that time, or Florida, which was still a Territory).

TOTAL IN BORDER STATES (Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky, and Missouri): 1,352,160

GRAND TOTAL FOR SLAVE STATES, INCLUDING THE BORDER STATES: 5,773,529

TOTAL FOR OTL UNION STATES, NOT INCLUDING THE BORDER STATES: 7,092,491

SLAVES IN NORTHERN STATES...3,568
SLAVES IN BORDER STATES...296,595
SLAVES IN SOUTH...1,708,880

FREE BLACKS IN NORTHERN STATES...137,529
FREE BLACKS IN BORDER STATES...74,279
FREE BLACKS IN SOUTH...100,795

FREE WHITE POPULATION OF THE OTL SECEDED STATES...2,611,694
FREE WHITE POPULATION OF OTL UNION STATES...6,951,394
FREE WHITE POPULATION OF BORDER STATES...981,286

By comparison, in 1860...

26,690,781 TOTAL FREE WHITES IN U.S.A.
5,449,462 FREE WHITES IN OTL SECEDED STATES
18,533,759 FREE WHITES IN OTL UNION STATES
2,707,560 FREE WHITES IN BORDER STATES

The Free White population of the OTL seceded States was just 29% of the Free White population of the OTL Union States (minus the Border States) in 1860. In 1830, the disparity was much less, with the free white population of the OTL seceded States being 37% of that for the OTL Union States (minus the Border States). If the Border States can be brought to secede in 1830, that percentage jumps up to as much as 51%.

So the Union still has a large advantage over the secessionist states either way, but not nearly as much as in 1861.

Also, the North is not nearly as industrialized in the ATL...the big industrial boom there was only just beginning... and the railroads which supported the Union war effort in OTL are not there (even as late as 1840, there were less than 3,000 miles of track nationwide, compared to well over 30,000 in 1860). The Union will find it much more difficult to keep its armies supplied while the operate in the Deep South, and occupying an area as large as the South will be problematic, to say the least.

So, overall, the South would have been much more likely to succeed if it took the plunge and seceded in the late 1820s or early 1830s.

As to the question of leadership, we really don't know who would have come to the fore for the South had the secession happened in say, 1830. Possibly you see General Edmund Pendleton Gaines (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmund_P._Gaines) go South and lead the Southern army facing Andy Jackson and/or Winfield Scott. He had recently quarrelled with Andy Jackson, and so this might be more likely because of that, as well.

Another officer who might end up with a high command in the Southern army is Zachary Taylor. Although Taylor was elected President on the Whig Ticket in 1848, he privately opposed the Whig's economic program which included high protectionist tariffs and government subsidies for internal improvements. So a war over tariffs might well lead him to follow his state out of the Union. He was already a Colonel in 1830 and, if OTL is any guide, was likely to be among the first round of generals selected for the Southern army as a result, if he goes South.


When the South threatened to secede in the 1840s over what to do with Mexican states didn't Zachary Taylor threaten to lead an army personally down south though?

[robertp6165]

When the South threatened to secede in the 1840s over what to do with Mexican states didn't Zachary Taylor threaten to lead an army personally down south though?

1) Zachary Taylor was President then. The "not on my watch" mentality comes into play once you've got the reins of power in your own hands (as indeed it did for Abe Lincoln, who in the 1840s had stated the right of secession existed, but then reversed himself when faced with it as President).

2) The crisis during Taylor's Administration was over the South's demand for expansion of slavery into the territories, something Taylor opposed, even though he was, himself, a slaveholder. The crisis in the proposed 1830 war would have been over the North's demand for high tariffs, something else he opposed. The fact that he would have sided with the North in 1850 does not mean anything with regard to how he would have gone in 1830. The two situations are not really analogous.

[mrmandias]

The South wasn't sufficiently radicalized to take the serious step of Civil War earlier.

[Grand Admiral Cho]

1) Zachary Taylor was President then. The "not on my watch" mentality comes into play once you've got the reins of power in your own hands (as indeed it did for Abe Lincoln, who had in the 1840s had stated the right of secession existed, but then reversed himself when faced with it as President).


He really did?

[Nikephoros]

1) Zachary Taylor was President then. The "not on my watch" mentality comes into play once you've got the reins of power in your own hands (as indeed it did for Abe Lincoln, who had in the 1840s had stated the right of secession existed, but then reversed himself when faced with it as President).

Yet who started that war?

Not Lincoln.

[robertp6165]

The South wasn't sufficiently radicalized to take the serious step of Civil War earlier.

Well, one assumes that the POD here is that the South IS sufficiently radicalized to secede earlier. This is ALTERNATE history we are discussing, not OTL.

[robertp6165]

Yet who started that war?

Not Lincoln.

Well, that's another debate entirely and not really germaine to the discussion at hand.

[Nikephoros]

Hardly a debate, but yes, not truly germaine.

[robertp6165]

He really did?

Yes, he really did. (http://usa-civil-war.com/Lincoln/lincoln.html)

[Fearless Leader]

Well, one assumes that the POD here is that the South IS sufficiently radicalized to secede earlier. This is ALTERNATE history we are discussing, not OTL.

I think Robert nailed the crux of the thread. The POD isn't that TTL's civil war rises out of the nullification crisis, but rather that at some point earlier in the timeline measures are taken to radicalize the South so that when TTL's Nullification crisis comes about, the South secedes and succeeds.

Now the real question is how early the POD needs to be to create a secessionist attitude within the south. IMO this will have to do with slavery as I just don't see the entire South up and leaving over such a minor and fixable issue of tariffs. I mean tariffs weren't only unpopular in the South, come next election all one would have to do is ensure that the correct candidate won. In order to have the South secede you're going to need to shut them out of government (just like the north did through population and size) and threaten them on a serious issue.

In my mind mere tariffs will never be this issue. Any POD causing a Civil War in the 1830's is going to need a much more abolitionist US. Only after discerning this initial POD will we be able to extrapolate potential knock on effects and determine the course and outcome of TTL's civil war.

[robertp6165]

I think Robert nailed the crux of the thread. The POD isn't that TTL's civil war rises out of the nullification crisis, but rather that at some point earlier in the timeline measures are taken to radicalize the South so that when TTL's Nullification crisis comes about, the South secedes and succeeds.

Now the real question is how early the POD needs to be to create a secessionist attitude within the south. IMO this will have to do with slavery as I just don't see the entire South up and leaving over such a minor and fixable issue of tariffs. I mean tariffs weren't only unpopular in the South, come next election all one would have to do is ensure that the correct candidate won. In order to have the South secede you're going to need to shut them out of government (just like the north did through population and size) and threaten them on a serious issue.

In my mind mere tariffs will never be this issue. Any POD causing a Civil War in the 1830's is going to need a much more abolitionist US. Only after discerning this initial POD will we be able to extrapolate potential knock on effects and determine the course and outcome of TTL's civil war.

Well, I disagree that its necessary to involve the slavery issue, at least not directly, and I do think the tariff issue could have been the impetus for an earlier secession.

It is often forgotten that in the early years of the republic, the Northeast's demands for ever higher tariffs were held in check by an alliance between the South and the States of the Old Northwest, which, their economies being almost exclusively agricultural at that time, opposed high tariffs for the same reasons the South did. Gradually, as industry began to filter into the region, that alliance was broken as an interest group of industrialists and railroad men grew up there. This is what allowed the Northeastern protectionist interests to finally get their "Tariff of Abominations" passed in 1828. A POD might be simply having the region begin to industrialize a bit sooner than in OTL, leading the North to be more radical on the tariff issue at an earlier date. This in turn leads to earlier and more potent radicalization of the South.

South Carolina in OTL was ready to leave over the tariff issue in 1832, and didn't because a compromise was found that South Carolina could accept. If no compromise had been found...either because of intransigence by a more radicalized South or by a more united and radicalized North...South Carolina would almost certainly have left the Union. And if South Carolina had left the Union, the other Southern States would have had to seriously consider doing so as well, because at that point the right of secession itself...something which the South (and many in the North) considered the only available remedy against possible tyranny by the federal government...would be at stake. If they allowed Andy Jackson to march into Columbia and hang the "rebel" leaders, as he threatened to do, they would have admitted that the right of secession didn't exist, and effectively forfeited their right to ever appeal to it again if a future federal government should decide to take actions which were injurious to the interests of the Southern states. I think under those conditions, most of the South would have found very difficult NOT to secede in support of South Carolina's right to do so, or in opposition against the use of force against South Carolina.

[67th Tigers]

Remember the strategic geography of America is completely different without steam power. It is *much* harder for one side to invade the other. Confederate independence is a near certainty.

[Fearless Leader]

Well, I disagree that its necessary to involve the slavery issue, at least not directly, and I do think the tariff issue could have been the impetus for an earlier secession.

It is often forgotten that in the early years of the republic, the Northeast's demands for ever higher tariffs were held in check by an alliance between the South and the States of the Old Northwest, which, their economies being almost exclusively agricultural at that time, opposed high tariffs for the same reasons the South did. Gradually, as industry began to filter into the region, that alliance was broken as an interest group of industrialists and railroad men grew up there. This is what allowed the Northeastern protectionist interests to finally get their "Tariff of Abominations" passed in 1828. A POD might be simply having the region begin to industrialize a bit sooner than in OTL, leading the North to be more radical on the tariff issue at an earlier date. This in turn leads to earlier and more potent radicalization of the South.

South Carolina in OTL was ready to leave over the tariff issue in 1832, and didn't because a compromise was found that South Carolina could accept. If no compromise had been found...either because of intransigence by a more radicalized South or by a more united and radicalized North...South Carolina would almost certainly have left the Union. And if South Carolina had left the Union, the other Southern States would have had to seriously consider doing so as well, because at that point the right of secession itself...something which the South (and many in the North) considered the only available remedy against possible tyranny by the federal government...would be at stake. If they allowed Andy Jackson to march into Columbia and hang the "rebel" leaders, as he threatened to do, they would have admitted that the right of secession didn't exist, and effectively forfeited their right to ever appeal to it again if a future federal government should decide to take actions which were injurious to the interests of the Southern states. I think under those conditions, most of the South would have found very difficult NOT to secede in support of South Carolina's right to do so, or in opposition against the use of force against South Carolina.

Interesting points, though I'm still not convinced that the South was ready to full out secede during the Nullification crisis. IMO had the crisis boiled over, the South would have seen their right of secession done away with in a fait accompli. Remember that it took a while for the South to be radicalized enough to secede in 1860 in OTL. Sure there'd be lots of protests but would they actually pull the trigger? I don't know.

As for the more industrialized North, that indeed is a possibility. Perhaps an earlier Erie Canal could be the POD? Let's say that George Washington runs into problems with the OTL Patowmack Canal and instead opts to pursue the Mohawk valley as an alternative in the 1780's. Work on the Canal is started in 1785 and the Canal is completed some years later allowing people to flood into the North West. (This might also affect the Northwest Indian War). An earlier settlement of the Northwest probably means earlier statehood (Under Jefferson's plan perhaps?). Though immensely expensive and a source of criticism for Washington, TTL's Erie Canal will surely pay off within Washington's 2 terms.

An earlier Erie Canal is going to have huge knock on effects though. Higher numbers of settlers in the Northwest are going to raise tensions with the Native Americans earlier, perhaps butterflying away Tecumseh as he will only be a child when serious settler expansion in the region begins.

More settlers in the Northwest will also undoubtedly have an effect on the development of Upper Canada. In TTL John Graves Simcoe was effectively giving away land leading many American settlers to take him up on the offer. In TTL due to the Erie Canal there's going to be substantially more of them. When/if the US/UK come to blows over impressment in TTL, Upper Canada could very well be populated by more Americans than Loyalists. This coupled with more people in the Northwest could lead to the Americans eeking out some kind of victory in the war.

With a more populous, larger (+ Upper Canada) Northwest, I could see a similar situation developing in TTL in the 1830's to what happened in OTL during the 1860's...But then again with a POD 40 or so years earlier I think it's important to figure out all the immediate causes before going on to TTL's ACW.