American Civil War pre-1860

[Nytram01]

What if the American Civil War happened before 1860?

I think it is generally agreed that a start date for the American Civil War much later than 1864 would lead to a total Union victory happening in very little time. As it was the original time the ACW started only gave the South a limited chance of getting their independance so we can safey assume that from the mid-1860's onwards the South has no chance of getting independance.

So what if the South seceeded earlier? What if, for some reason or other, the South seceeded in the 1840's or 1850's instead? Would this give them a better chance of gaining independance or was their fight doomed to fail regardless?

 

[Elephande]

Well, you have to start with a POD. One possible one might be a further escalation of the South Carolina Nullification Crisis in 1832.

As for commanders, Lee was out of West Point for three years, a brevet second lieutenant in the Corps of Engineers. Grant was 10. Stonewall Jackson was 8. Beauregard was 14. Meade was a year into West Point. Albert Sidney Johnston was chief of staff to Henry Atkinson in the Black Hawk War. McClellan was 6. Halleck was 17. Sherman was 12. Sheridan was born the previous year. J.E.B. Stuart had him beat, though - he wasn't even alive yet.

Winfield Scott could have, though.

My point is that for an earlier start date, you'd have to rule out some of the major commanders due to age restraints. If you wanted to have the same commanders, the POD would have to be no more than 5 or so years before OTL.

 

[tallwingedgoat]

If the Compromise of 1850 failed you could have a war in the 1850s, with a relatively weaker north as a result. Perhaps if Zachary Taylor didn't die the compromise would fail.

 

[temporal insurgent]

The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions of 1798 and 1799 caused so much concern about southern secession and possible civilwar that Alexander Hamilton suggested privately that the Army should be sent into Virginia.

I could see things going really, really wrong and some form of civil war taking place.

Imagine a Confederate Army led by, Robert E. Lee's father, Major-General Henry "Light Horse Harry" Lee. Thomas Jefferson as Confederate President.

Because neither region is industrialized at this point, the only real advantage the North would have is in population.

Economically, the southern states, unlike some of the northern ones, would have the advantage that they had pretty much already paid their war debt from the revolution.

A very different ACW, but an interesting notion.

 

[Hapsburg]

What about the Nullification Crisis under Jackson's regime? Could that have expanded into a broader North-South civil war?

 

[David S Poepoe]

Winfield Scott could have, though.

Having just finished a biography of Winfield Scott he would have been perfect for command in an earlier ACW. While Scott was from Virginia, he was a staunch believer in the Union and would never have sided with the secessionists. The North would have had an extremely valuable tool in Scott.

 

[Cherico]

The chance of the south successfully secceding from the union get
weaker and weaker with time. If the south seccedes earler then their
chances go up because the norths advantage in population and industry
become weaker.

 

[Hierophant]

Having just finished a biography of Winfield Scott he would have been perfect for command in an earlier ACW. While Scott was from Virginia, he was a staunch believer in the Union and would never have sided with the secessionists. The North would have had an extremely valuable tool in Scott.

But couldn't the same have been said of Gen. George Thomas? Of course I guess I could see if this civil war was right after the Mexican War, public favor could help him get command.

 

[BrotherToAll]

doomed to fail regardless?

Exactly even if they win they lose as the states would form a confederation with a weak central government and as the states begin to disagree about how things are done they break apart fight among themselves and are swallowed by the US once again one by one.

 

[tallwingedgoat]

IMO the South was pretty much doomed. Even if they won independence it was just a matter of time before the industrial North conquered them in a second war. That's one area I don't agree with Harry Turtledove.

 

[Melior]

On the other hand, don't forget that pretty much earlier civil war would be fought with little telegraph, railway etc usage. So you would see generaly smaller "armies" (perhaps in size of 10-20 thousand max), more living off the land and moving on feet rather than by train to the war theaters. SO no strategic moves as eg sending Longstreet Corps to Army of Tennessee, use of armoured riverclads to support taking southern forts and steamrunners to effectively blockade southern coasts. Also You must take into consideration that pre-Mexican-American war, no Texas side with CSA, and pre 1845 some southern territorries not the full states (Florida example). So You get weaker south as well, in manpower perhaps as well in commanders, alas it's for sure that many new names would appear. Interesting enough if some unknown major or lt.colonel would make as good as Stuart or Forrest.

One thing to point out, that war primary would be over the disputed state or constitutional issue, slavery might not become the theme as it was in TTL. No US Coloured Troops regimets seen perhaps in whole war. Also the war wouldn't be so unique in technological way (first battle of ironclads, armoured trains, use observation balloons etc)

 

[Atom]

An earlier civil war will severely affect U.S expansion. A civil war in 1832 will severely effect the Mexican-America war, although by this time Teewxas and it's course seem pretty set. If the Union wins it might never come to pass, as most of the supporters were southerners. A southern victory will likely cause a Southern-Mexcan war, and the outcome of that is variable.

 

[Elephande]

Having just finished a biography of Winfield Scott he would have been perfect for command in an earlier ACW. While Scott was from Virginia, he was a staunch believer in the Union and would never have sided with the secessionists. The North would have had an extremely valuable tool in Scott.

And by 1861, he was arguably too old, his greatest triumphs coming over a decade earlier. However, I was going simply by age, rather than competence.

The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions of 1798 and 1799 caused so much concern about southern secession and possible civilwar that Alexander Hamilton suggested privately that the Army should be sent into Virginia.

I could see things going really, really wrong and some form of civil war taking place.

Imagine a Confederate Army led by, Robert E. Lee's father, Major-General Henry "Light Horse Harry" Lee. Thomas Jefferson as Confederate President.

Because neither region is industrialized at this point, the only real advantage the North would have is in population.

Economically, the southern states, unlike some of the northern ones, would have the advantage that they had pretty much already paid their war debt from the revolution.

A very different ACW, but an interesting notion.

Would we really have gone to war around the turn of the century? I was under the impression that the government was too preoccupied with the prospect of war with either Revolutionary France or Britain...

On the other hand, who'd be the Northern Commander? The time period all but completely prevents Washington from commanding - I think he would have tried to keep the Union together, even though he was a Virginian slaveholder. Plus, he died in 1799. Henry Knox, the Sec. War? Would they give Sen. Schuyler command? Daniel Morgan led the troops that repressed the Whiskey Rebellion, but he was a U.S. Representative and a Virginian. James Wilkinson was from Maryland and considered Kentucky his home. Maybe Arthur St. Clair or Josiah Harmar, but would they be decisive enough against Light Horse Harry Lee?

 

[brecarious]

Query guys doesn't an earlier war favor the Union.

It means Winfield Scott is younger and thus better able to command the Federal Army.

I.E. This isn't an army looking to the Baby Napoleon this is an army under the command of the guy who came up with the anaconda plan to begin with that eventually won the war.

An earlier civil war means Scott in overall command with able seconds to command his wings. Or at least people who can say 'what should we do sir' when they get in a tough spot.

What do you guys think am I over selling Scott? Or is he to old even with a earlier POD?

 

[Ghost 88]

And by 1861, he was arguably too old, his greatest triumphs coming over a decade earlier. However, I was going simply by age, rather than competence.




Would we really have gone to war around the turn of the century? I was under the impression that the government was too preoccupied with the prospect of war with either Revolutionary France or Britain...

On the other hand, who'd be the Northern Commander? The time period all but completely prevents Washington from commanding - I think he would have tried to keep the Union together, even though he was a Virginian slaveholder. Plus, he died in 1799. Henry Knox, the Sec. War? Would they give Sen. Schuyler command? Daniel Morgan led the troops that repressed the Whiskey Rebellion, but he was a U.S. Representative and a Virginian. James Wilkinson was from Maryland and considered Kentucky his home. Maybe Arthur St. Clair or Josiah Harmar, but would they be decisive enough against Light Horse Harry Lee?

You forget one General who could be extremly decisive and would have fought for the Union and he was already Commander in Chief in 1832, I am sure you heard of Andrew Jackson.
Winfield Scott got extremly bad Press in the ACW from what I have read of him he was one of the best the US ever had and in 1832 he was in his prime.
That is two for the North.
Albert S. Johnston was from Kentucky, in 1832 his wife was still alive, he only moved to Texas after she passed away in 1834, so his loyalty would go the way of Ky. If Ky stayed as in 61 he might stay in the Army.
William Henry Harrison was also around although IIRC he was a Virginian.
One other possibility a young and struggling poet who had just left West Point in 1831 Edgar Allan Poe

 

[David S Poepoe]

What do you guys think am I over selling Scott? Or is he to old even with a earlier POD?

Osprey Books' Union Commanders in the East (1) justly calls Scott the US' greatest soldier. He would be alright for any ACW that breaks out between 1840 and 1855.

 

[Elephande]

I hadn't forgotten about Jackson - my original post was speaking about the fact that most of the Civil War generals were still extremely young in 1832.

Winfield Scott was the commander of the U.S. Army for twenty years, and a soldier for thirty or so years before that. He was in charge of marshaling forces in 1832, just in case fighting did break out.

And FYI, Jackson was president in 1832. He couldn't have ridden to war as a general. Also, he was from South Carolina and based his career in Tennessee.

 

[67th Tigers]

Osprey Books' Union Commanders in the East (1) justly calls Scott the US' greatest soldier. He would be alright for any ACW that breaks out between 1840 and 1855.

Either here or elsewhere (I think here) I posted a list of the senior US officers at around that time (based on an early ACW thread). Scott is certain to be the Field Army Commander, and he is truly excellent, IMHO better than Lee (but not Longstreet, IMHO the best field commander of their side).

 

[67th Tigers]

Oh, actually on "54-40 or Fight": https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=61142&highlight=winfield+scott&page=6

I wrote:

Re: The Officer Corps

This is prettymuch defined who commanded in the IRL Mexican War, Lee is still a Captain, Grant is a 2Lt etc., and "Stonewall" Jackson is still at USMA (he's class of 1846)

So the US commanders are likely to be:

Winfield Scott
Zach Taylor
David Twiggs
William Worth
John Wool
Stephen Kearny
John Fremont

Similarly, this is 10 years before the Crimea (and I still wonder where this myth about bad generals came from, even the worst, England, wasn't as bad as some ACW commanders). This means that the officers are again going to be a bit different, and the 1840's is the last decade where the rich vein of Napoleonic combat experience is still effective enough to take the field.

Hart's Army List for 1845 and 1846 (and some others) is online at google books. It contains a listing of the then ranks of all officers above the rank of Major etc.

http://www.google.com/books?vid=0MXY...brr=1#PPA10,M1

 

[Dean_the_Young]

Would we really have gone to war around the turn of the century? I was under the impression that the government was too preoccupied with the prospect of war with either Revolutionary France or Britain...

Not so much war (though a few scares may have been in the mind), but a big debate was of Federalist Anglo-philes headed by Hamilton against the Democratic Republican Francophiles, headed by Jefferson*. And since Federalists were centered in the North/New England, and the Dem-Reps in the South/west, such an early Civil War might see Britain back the North and France the South!


*Who, of course, wasn't too Francophile to be ready to ally with Britain should France not have sold Louisiana.