Would the American Civil War have ended differently if it started earlier?

arya126

Squad Leader
Joined
May 10, 2010
Messages
4,306
Location
Outside the Wall
Would the ACW have ended differently if it had begun earlier? Such as in 1820 or in 1850, both years where a compromise was made to ease the tension? I am not asking if it was likely that it would start earlier. Merely if there would have been a different result.

For example two of the usual advantages, the Union had greater industrial capacity and the South had a military tradition in terms of leadership and experience since it was mostly southerners who fought in the war with Mexico, would not have been so distinct in say 1820 when the nation was younger and the war of 1812 would have left experienced veterans in the north as well.
 
I would consider it unlikely that another civil war in the size and scope would happen at an earlier date. The "culture n heritage" that bound the South together, and the plantation system that its economy was founded upon, was only sufficiently developed to support the regional insurrection that it did at the time that it actually happened. I remain unconvinced that even if the elites in one or a few of the state legislatures voted for secession, that a portion of the country remotely approaching that which actually rebelled would join them in that treason.
 
I am not asking if it was likely that it would start earlier. Merely if there would have been a different result.

While I appreciate the response, and I agree with you to an extent as I realize there are some rather large reasons why such a civil war would probably not have happened at an earlier date. However, the question I was asking is what would have happened assuming such a civil war comparable to the one in 1861 HAD happened at an earlier date. Would there have been a different outcome?
 
While I appreciate the response, and I agree with you to an extent as I realize there are some rather large reasons why such a civil war would probably not have happened at an earlier date. However, the question I was asking is what would have happened assuming such a civil war comparable to the one in 1861 HAD happened at an earlier date. Would there have been a different outcome?

If the POD is not plausible, what's the point in pursuing the investigation as a historical experiment though?
 
If the POD is not plausible, what's the point in pursuing the investigation as a historical experiment though?

There was a possibility of civil war breaking out. It was obviously small in 1820, but it grew over time resulting in the civil war we know today. It is not that the POD is implausible, rather it is unlikely.

The point, is could the south have won had the ingredients for the civil war been ready sooner?
 
I am not asking if it was likely that it would start earlier. Merely if there would have been a different result.

If Germany invaded Poland on August 31st 1939, World War II would have never happened.
 
For example two of the usual advantages, the Union had greater industrial capacity and the South had a military tradition in terms of leadership and experience since it was mostly southerners who fought in the war with Mexico, would not have been so distinct in say 1820 when the nation was younger and the war of 1812 would have left experienced veterans in the north as well.
The Confederacy cannot be said to have possessed a real advantage in military leadership for almost the entire war. And it certainly did not have such an advantage in the beginning of the war. Lee did not take command in the East from the indifferent Johnston until the summer of 1862, and his record prior to taking that command - an embarrassing defeat in West Virginia at the hands of none other than William Rosecrans - did not inspire much confidence. Albert Sidney Johnston spent 1861 and 1862 destroying what little chance the traitor states had in the West before his death at Shiloh. The CS Navy's best commerce raiding captains didn't get their starts until later in the war. And at the highest levels of government, Lincoln and the War Department were far superior in terms of overall strategic direction, command, and supply - Davis' rotating roster of War Secretaries were ciphers, and Davis himself refused to establish an actual overall strategy for the Confederacy, a decision that plagued the traitor states throughout the entire war.

This lack of leadership is reflected in the grievous losses the Confederacy took during the first year of the war. By June 1862, Federal armies had captured New Orleans (the largest city in the Confederacy) and were at the gates of Richmond. They had evicted the traitors from Kentucky and from half of Tennessee, and were ranging throughout northern Mississippi. Federal amphibious landings had also seized control of key points along the North Carolina coast, and demolished fortifications in Georgia and South Carolina. To put it lightly, at that point the Confederacy looked like it wouldn't last the year.

Then McClellan threw away the Army's best chance at winning the war quickly, and his successors made a hash of things, either from incompetence (like Pope) or overpromotion (like Hooker and Burnside); the Federal offensive on the Mississippi stalled as the bluecoats outran their supply lines and had to solve a tricky terrain problem; and a group of new, energetic commanders for the Confederacy in the West - men like Bragg and Breckenridge - reopened the Kentucky issue and turned the walkover war south of the Ohio into a legitimate fight.

Only in that Confederate annus mirabilis from June 1862 to June 1863 can one even begin to speak of a possible advantage in certain levels of military leadership. And such an advantage cannot be reasonably said to be due to prewar expertise, certainly not Mexican service. Men like Lee, Longstreet, Jackson, Joe Johnston, Beauregard, and Stuart had fought reasonably well in Mexico, sure. But the Confederacy also possessed a surfeit of mediocre to bad generals with Mexican experience as well - the likes of John Winder and Albert Sidney Johnston. Furthermore, men like Breckenridge, who performed reasonably competently in the first stages of the war for the Confederacy, did not see combat in Mexico.

On the Federal side, many Mexican veterans did not pan out either, for various reasons. John Wool was a supernumerary who mostly just got in the way. Irvin McDowell and George McClellan fought in Mexico and ended up making complete asses of themselves. Of course, others served in Mexico and did well, such as Grant, Thomas, Hancock, Couch, and Sumner, all of whom made positive marks early in the war. Other quality Federal generals in the early going, such as Burnside and Rosecrans, did not serve in the Army during the Mexican campaign.

Simply put, the traitor states did not possess an advantage in military leadership for most of the war. Claims that they did are part and parcel of the so-called Lost Cause mythmaking - "we had the better leaders but y'all cheated by havin' more men and guns" - and are not worth bringing up. :)
 
Even Lincoln only referred to the South as "rebels"; "treason" and "traitor states" simply does not apply. (If only because treason is a personal crime and per definition does not apply to a state; secondly, ofcourse, the matter was secession - which is the appropriate legal term - and the war decided that individual states do not have the right to secede once part of the Union. Had the South not attacked first, the North would have had to. The entire issue of abolition was the pretext, not the cause of the war - which obviously was secession, i.e. states' rights.* Lincoln only considered abolition in 1863, because the war wasn't going too well for the North and he expected Southern morale to collapse. As usual morale didn't collapse and the war dragged on. Typically, with Vietnam, this is one of those undeclared wars the US seem fond of.)

Would the ACW have ended differently if it had begun earlier? Such as in 1820 or in 1850, both years where a compromise was made to ease the tension? I am not asking if it was likely that it would start earlier. Merely if there would have been a different result.

For example two of the usual advantages, the Union had greater industrial capacity and the South had a military tradition in terms of leadership and experience since it was mostly southerners who fought in the war with Mexico, would not have been so distinct in say 1820 when the nation was younger and the war of 1812 would have left experienced veterans in the north as well.

Two factors: in the long run abolition would have been unavoidable (making the Civil War in itself moot). The North also had the advantage of being the most populous and not being dependent on a monoculture, such as the cotton economy.

*Individual citizens' petitions to promote secession are, legally speaking, quite pointless.
 
There was a chance that the Civil War could have broken out in 1850 if Taylor hadn't died, because he didn't like the Compromise. I think it would have been much shorter because Taylor was a competent military man and he would have had Winfield Scott when Scott was still in good health. There's also a good chance fewer states would have seceded because a lot of the events that had polarized opinion hadn't occurred yet.
 
making the Civil War in itself moot

The Civil War was about more than just slavery. The North didn't really care about slavery and was primarily motivated by recovering lost states: In fact, Abraham Lincoln did attempt to address Southern fears of abolition by advocating a pro-slavery amendment in the constitution. The emancipation proclamation was a product of political expedience during the war, not the culmination of its supposed casus belli.
While slavery was indeed a concern for the Southerners, the South was also concerned by the protectionist policies of the Union. Had the South somehow survived the civil war, I bet the South's victory would have been likened to the British recognition of US independence.
 
Protectionist policies that affected the South and their slave economy. It was about slavery for the South, pretty much entirely.
 
Gods, can you just imagine what a god awful country America would currently be without New England.
 
Gods, can you just imagine what a god awful country America would currently be without New England.

I imagine it being quite a nice place. A lot fewer liberals to be sure. Of course that would mean losing Boston, but we have to make sacrifices I suppose.
 
It would have turned out far better if it had happened in 1814 and New England had left, sure.
The Hartford Convention is the primary reason secession was extremely unlikely to actually happen in 1814. It's not indicative of a deeper or broader amount of secessionist sentiment, it's an example of how local political leadership was determined to bleed off what secessionist sentiment there was into legal avenues and requests for consultation.
I imagine it being quite a nice place. A lot fewer liberals to be sure. Of course that would mean losing Boston, but we have to make sacrifices I suppose.
You got that backwards: losing Boston (and Foxborough) would be the plus side, losing the rest of New England would be the drawback.
 
I said it would have been better. I didn't say it was likely to have happened then.
 
What would've been even better than that would've been the idiotic Southern planter class not starting the stupid War of 1812 in the first place.
 
Protectionist policies that affected the South and their slave economy. It was about slavery for the South, pretty much entirely.

The protectionist policies affected the agricultural economy negatively in general, so even if slavery was out of the picture, it would have led to Southern grievances. Alone not likely to be enough for civil war, but still.
 
What would've been even better than that would've been the idiotic Southern planter class not starting the stupid War of 1812 in the first place.

From what I've read the biggest benefit of the war was re-eastablishing the fact that we were independent from Britain and could hold our own in a war. Which isn't really insignificant.
 
Back
Top Bottom