What if the Civil War had Started in 1850, like it should have.

[Milkyway!]

Now, I would hope everyone here has the least bit of knowledge of American History to know, that the Civil War was from 1861-1865. Lasting exactly 1457days (Someone can check my math, if they'd like) but! What if the war started in 1850. Like it should have been.

In 1850 threats of war came about, once again. For the one 1 millionth time in a mear half century. Leading to the compramise of 1850. Saying.

1) California will come in as a free state.
2) Popular Sovereignty will come into effect.
3) The Fugitave Slave Act.
4a) Washington DC will no longer take part in the Slave trade. (Very minor detail)
4b) Washington DC is still aloud to have slaves though. (Very minor detail)

Once again, everyone was happy for a mere, 10 minutes until Kansas wanted its statehood. But heres my proposal..What if the South had suceded in 1850, like they really should have. I could see the South not only doing better, but actually having a chance to win the war.

Why? Simple, really. The North was industrialized, the South stayed throughout the coarse of entire decade. Now, incase you don't know what industrialized means, it means they're technologically advanced. Vastly the North were making techological advancements, while the South clung to their old, slavery ways. They stayed the same throughout the coarse of a decade. Making no advancements. They had no real economy (Yes, they had cotton trades going on, but whats the point in having money, if you have nothing to spend it on? Other than buying more slaves)

In 1850 though, the South and the North were more equal in strength. The war would have went a diffrent way. Instead of the North simply dominating throughout most of the war such as the original Civil War. The South would have stood more of a chance. The South might have actually gone as far as winning the war. Obviously bad for the country in terms of a union, but in terms of The South winning the war, it would have been great for them.

 

[Барбоса]

A civil war in 1850 would likely have been worse for America. As you say, the gap between North and South widened greatly during the 1850s. An early start to civil war may have given the South more of a chance. It is possible that fewer Southern states will have voted for seccession in 1850 with the divisive election of Abraham Lincoln but for the sake of arguement, lets assume that the same cast list appears in 1850 as in 1861.

The leadership of the both armies would be an interesting point of digression. Would the South have turned to a Robert E. Lee who wasn't even superintendent of West Point in 1850? Who would the North have turned to? It is quite possible that Winfield Scott, 64 at the time, could have taken to the field again. He was a far greater tactician and strategist than most of the Union generals that fought in 1861-1865 and may have been able to decisively defeat the Southern army quicker (although he did advocate the Anaconda Plan to squeeze the South into surrender).

Overall, I think the American continent will have been in for a longer conflict, one asas desperately fought as 1861-1865. This will have given more time for the other Atlantic powers, Britian and France, to recognise the South and therefore greatly strengthen its position. However, in the early 1850s, Britain and France were pre-occupied with the Russian advance on Constantinople and the subsequent Crimean War to give any real aid to the fledgling Southern states. Northern industrialisation will likely have won an 1850 civil war but perhaps not as convincingly as it would do in 1865. A more compromising solution may have had to be found regarding slavery and States' Rights

 

[KKarvox]

Actually, as someone who knows quite a bit about the Civil War, the South dominated most of the war, because of better Generals like Gen. Lee, Ge. Jackson, Gen. Beauregard, and Gen. Longstreet, and better leadership. Lincoln is heavily overrated as a leader and a president, and the only thing that he did that was right was freeing the slaves. His top generals were all aweful military minds, and the only "good" ones were Grant and Sherman. Grant was a butcher, who would just throw troops at the enemy until they gave up, and Sherman should have been a war criminal, for burning cities and looting during the war. Lincoln instigated the war by occupying Fort Sumter, and also suspended Habeas Corpus , which gave him the right to arrest anyone he thought was helping the confederacy, even without probable cause. The only reason the south lost the war, was Gettysburg. Gen. Lee underestimated the strength of the Union army, and Gen. Ewell failed to obey orders and take the high ground at either Seminary ridge or Cemetery Ridge i believe, can't remember off-hand, which gave the Union a huge advantage. I'm honestly not sure if starting the war earlier would have changed the outcome, but I'd guess Gen. Lee not being the leader definitely would have made a difference, since he was the reason the south almost won.

 

[Mr. TM]

Some things to consider here I guess. I wont comment on who would have won the war, nor will I comment on the pre Civil War War, Bleeding Kansas as it is known.

But one thing that should be brought to this discussion that I always hold dearly, probably being Canadian, and as Canada was still part of Great Britain at the time. The matter of Europe's interactions during the war. I believe that an earlier war would have been beneficial to the south for the simple matter of cotton, and its importance in Europe.

Great Britain and France supported the Confederacy during the early stages of the war because they depended heavily on cotton. However, as the war moved on, Egypt became, as well as India, a great producer of cotton. With this demand reached, Great Britain and France shifted away, and in the end did not grant nationhood to the Confederate States of America, and would not support them.

However, if the war had started, and perhaps ended sooner, than perhaps that other market would not have been created in time, thus making Great Britain and France more dependent.

This is what I know of during the time period, so correct me if I am wrong.

 

[Барбоса]

Personally, I think that proposed British and French involvement in the American Civil War can be overstated. I do not think that Britain was ever going to get militarily involved in the conflict, aside from perhaps using her navy to enforce her trading rights in Southern ports. I think Britain saw trade with the South as a necessary evil. If push came to shove and London was forced to make her position clear, I do not think that the British government would have sided with a slave nation and remained neutral. Perhaps this moral conundrum is the reason why the cultivation of cotton in India and Egypt mentioned by TM was investigated to begin with. By the 1850s and 1860s, the French did not do very much outside of Continental Europe without the cooperation of the British so they would have been a particularly useless ally for the Confederacy.

The only thing the British and French could offer the South, aside from trade and some technology, was legitimacy. This might of forced Lincoln through public opinion to negotiate but in the end it probably would not have made that much difference. If the North was set on enforcing the Emancipation Proclamation in the Southern states then no recognition of statehood from the British or French was going to stop it.

 

[Tastycles]

Britain probably would have got involved in the Civil War had it been earlier. By the time it did start, the Crimean War had been and gone and the country wasn't in as strong a position as it had been previously. The importance of cotton would also no doubt have had an effect. The timing of the war meant that it ended up being the first war fought in America were the outcome wasn't all but entirely determined by the acitons of France and Great Britain. Had the south won, the slave trade wouldn't have lasted much longer, and indeed, the cheap cotton from Egypt would have crippled the nation, which would have relied on it, probably leading to another war. All in all, its probably a good thing it went the way it did.

 

[FromTheSouth]

I think that the South would have won. While it is a common misconception that slavery was the issue in this war, it was more the attempted economic hegemony of the North. The agricultural South was weakened in the period between 1850 and the beginning of the war.

The war was over the rights of the agricultural South vs. the developing North. The North was using the raw materials produced and mined in the South to make things, and somehow felt that this was superior. The North wanted to take over the South in order to raise their profits. South Carolina seceded in response to the North's Imperial aims. Only 75 years earlier, the Colonies protested Britain's attempts to maintain control over the resource producing areas of the colonies, and now, the North was acting as if the Magna Carta still ruled the land. The Congress of the United States was established to regulate interstate trade, and no compromise over that trade was being reached. South Carolina's aim was to gather the rest of the South and make the North a trading partner, an entity which would have to purchase the raw materials at a steep price as punishment for their attempted coercion and practiced corruption.

I don't think the war would have ended slavery if it had started earlier. Even Lincoln said that if he could have ended the war without freeing the slaves he would have, and his predecessors were no more on the side of emancipation that he was. Slavery would have ended soon, however, as technology was eliminating the need for slaves.

I think that the lack of support for freeing the slaves led to their getting screwed. Starting the war earlier could have made it worse, however, I think that instead of the hastily planned Reconstruction terms, had the war started earlier, perhaps more time and thought would have been devoted to what to do with the millions of black Americans that were about to be freed......had they been at all.

 

[Барбоса]

I have a hard time thinking that the South could ever have won the war outright due to its lack of population and technology compared to the North. However, the South was to my knowledge never really looking for a total military victory. All they needed was to fight the North to a stalemate prolonging the war enough for Northern politicians and public opinion to be influenced by how much the war was costing in terms of dollars and in human lives. To that end, the earlier the conflict took place the better the chances were of forcing the North to compromise with regards States rights, slavery, trade and industry.