"No Henry Clay = ACW 1820 or 1850?" Topic

In the November issue of Smithsonian there is an article about the restoration of a portrait of Henry Clay, "The Great Compromiser." The article recounts Clay's role in reaching heading off the secession of the Southern states on two occasions – 1820 with the 2nd Missouri Compromise, and again in 1850 when the slave states were getting worked up over the admission of California.

An 1820 ACW would be an entirely different affair than the real-world one, I'd think. The North didn't have quite the industrial advantage over the South that it would later. George IV, newly to the Crown, might've decided to have a go at getting some or all of the Colonies back, but I doubt the South would've been appreciative of "help" only a few years after the War of 1812.

I couldn't even begin to speculate on an 1850 ACW.

Wyatt

One would hope that someone else would step up to the plate to be the compromising agent.

However entrenched economics and cultures on both sides meant that a conflict was going to happen.

An 1820s conflict would have been better for the South as the great Union advantage of a better railroad network had not happened yet. However the South had not expanded into texas yet which would have been a blow in supplies and manpower.

This would have also given mexico a better chance to hold on to California and Texas as well. A negative for the USA as a whole.

The classic 1850 war would have saw a deplted in manpower Southern force based on the number of Southerners from the old Ga-NC and Alabama gold fields who had recently raced to California.

Actually I think they missed the one that where we were much closer to war. The Nullification Crisis in the 1830s. I don't think the Missouri issue would ahve led to war. Too many moderates at that time. 1850, perhaps but no one was really calling for war yet.
But, when South Carolina nullified two federal laws in 1832 THAT almost brought war. South Carolina raised a military force, while others in SC created a force support the Union. Congress passed the Force Bill giving Jackson a blank check to force South Carolina to comply while southern states made it clear they would oppose any such attempt.
Sounds like a possible civil war there.

Over 30 years I speculated what might have happened if Henry Clay had died when he was thrown from his horse before the great Compromise of 1850. I even drew maps of the current US/Confederacy and Europe.

Basically, I think the South could have broken away in 1850. Their industrial base was on a par with that of the North.

Conversely, if the Civil War had been delayed until 1870, the war would have been over in a matter of weeks, given the North's industrial advantage by that time.

I don't think that any civil war would have been over in a matter of weeks, no matter when it was fought.

Interesting to think what would have happened if the ACW had been in the 1820's – would have possibly made it tougher for Texas, or maybe moved the Mexican-American (Mexican-Confederate) War five years earlier

As to 1850, would have been interesting indeed – probably not very pleasant for the North

For a war to occur, it would have required TWO elements.

#1 – Those southern states who wish to pull out do so.
#2 – US President must raise troops and go to war.

Lincoln was all about preserving the union. No doubt about that. But what of the others? Perhaps a succession in 1820 would have gone unopposed? What do we really know about James Monroe?

Born and raised in Virginia.
Former governor of Virginia.

As Prez he acquired Florida, agreed to the Missouri Compromise, and pushed his doctrine of keeping Europeans out of the Americas.

Would he have declared war on the south? Would he have just let them go? Perhaps even resigned to head south and be a loyal Virginian?

Leaving Daniel Tompkins as Prez?

I think the political climate in 1820 was nothing like it was in 1860. Lincoln was preserving a union four score and seven years old. Just about everyone living at that time was born an "American".

In 1820, half the population could remember being a subject of England.

I think the south migh have gotten away with succession in 1820. Mind you, I suspect that decades later, we would have fought a war of Unification. Manifest Destiny pushed us to the Pacific shore, and down south into what was upper Mexico. I don't doubt that it would have pushed us down into the southeast at some point.

Interesting alternate history IMHO.

Steve

Agree that the president in power at the time would have made a difference. Andrew Jackson was no Buchanan, Pierce or Fillmore, who were disasters in the years prior to the ACW.

Dan

Clay wasn't the only person actively seeking and building consensus for compromise, so there's your first hurdle.

The earlier a conflict started , the better the Chances for Southern "success" since, as decades passed, the edge in population, industry, transportation, and Naval Power were all to the Norths advantage in ever increasing ratios! The longer the US existed as a nation, the stronger the majority view to preserve the Union became! So decent chances early, slim chances in the 60s, and no chances later!!

In 1850, Millard Fillmore was president. He backed the compromise. This bio of him is interesting:

link