"Would the American Civil War have ended differently" Topic

… if it started earlier?

"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…"

From here

link

Armand

No

no

No transportation via rail would have been even greater on the Union side.

Honestly, who knows.

1820: Look at this map of population density and statehood:

looks like the south would be even more overwhelmed than 1860. OTOH without railroads or canals the campaigns would rely more on ocean travel and rivers to the first falls.
1840 looks better for the south in terms of population balance:

But the north has advantage in railroads:
link
and Canals:
link
Railroads would move troops and canals would move supplies.
Were I a southerner I'd start the war in 1820, the sheer difficulty of moving armies around the country would give advantage to the underdog.

Between 1820 and 1860 most immigrants came from northern and western Europe. The potato famine in Ireland (1845-1847) brought large numbers to the United States. The unsuccessful 1848 Revolution in Germany also created considerable emigration. Others came from Sweden, Norway, Denmark, England, Scotland and Wales.

Of the 5,400,000 immigrants arriving in the United States between 1820 and 1860, about 3,700,000, or more than two-thirds, entered at New York. This was followed by New Orleans (550,000), Boston (380,000), Philadelphia (230,000) and Baltimore (230,000).

A promise of citizenship and land a lot of immigrants would have joined the armed struggle. Like my great great grandfather from Switzerland who joined the Union Army.

The north had a divisive advantage.

I do not see how the South could have won, regardless of when the war started, once the war extended to more than one or two battles.

Totally disagree. Steam power was necessary for the North to conquer the South, on rails and up rivers and on the ocean. What was the 18th century rule of thumb for how large an army could be? It was a matter of overland transport, and if i recall correctly it was about 30,000 in one place unless they could be supplied by water. Great question.

No

Could the US have conquered Mexico in 1846-48? No. We won a lot of battles and captured the capital, but had we stayed in country the disease and the guerillas would have destroyed us. A more determined Mexican government would have defeated the invasion. The southern states might well have been able to do the same.

Thanks

Armand

Geez. That seems impossible to answer because of all the unknown factors that could have been decisive. Not only military abilities, but perhaps more importantly, political will to prosecute a war of rebellion/suppression. I think that might have been more important in the big picture than who had the biggest battalions or the most artillery or railroads. There were presidents between 1820 and 1860 who were perhaps more inclined to agree to letting the Dixie states leave rather than fight a war over secession. (I mean, look at Tyler, post-presidency he served as a CSA legislator.)

Didn't the US have all the conventional superiority in the War of 1812? Yet that still resulted in a stalemate. Canada and the UK had more will to resist (and some strategic advantages in terms of size and distance maybe) than the US did to fight on endlessly.

It's kinda like asking if the CSA could have won in, say, 1862-63 after some of its big battlefield victories in the East had Lincoln not been president and determined to keep fighting. Or if a compromise "peace" candidate had won the Northern election in 1864.

Historically, the South showed tremendous ability to fight on even after losing the strategic initiative and the capacity to conduct offensive operations against the North. The South's only hope for victory hinged on the North growing weary of the expense and effort and agreeing to a compromise peace -- it probably always did, the South was not fighting to conquer the North, only to establish its independence -- but it was the South's misfortune to face an implacable adversary in Lincoln despite Northern battlefield reverses that might have discouraged another political leader.

As I said earlier, who really knows.

One could look at advantages the North would NOT have had.

Rifled artillery, weaponry.
No Ironclad fleet. Wooden ships.
As mentioned, railroads.
Countries in Europe might be more inclined to intervene, especially England.

Just a few things.

There are so many variables at play that it would be extremely hard to give a short answer to this. It would be even harder to give an answer with any degree of certainty.

I'm going to go on a limb here with an answer.

1820? Perhaps.

We have to remember that the US had recently come out of a very UGLY war and a lot of folks were not so willing to take up musket and go marching down a dusty road southward.
The country was still very much building. Westward expansion was slowly starting, Mexico still owned the area of Texas, etc. Maine only became a state in 1820, Iowa wasn't, a state yet. Neither was Michigan, Kansas, Missouri, or Wisconsin. There were still areas of the Northeast and the Pacific Northwest that were in dispute with Canada.
From Texas to California still belonged to Mexico.
The Missouri Compromise was enacted.
Slavery was still legal in the United States.
Also remember that Steam was essentially new in development and the first major railroad (The B&O) would not open for another 10 years, (1830).
All transportation would be essentially foot, wagon, canalboat, flat boat, and ocean going. Movement would be slow and arduous. Roads were nothing more than dirt trails and much when it rained. Few cities one went further south.
If it boiled down to war, eventually I think the North would win, but at a terrible cost. It could even be (at that time and for that time) a Pyrrhic victory.

The problem with "what if?" speculation is that it's just as valid to say "No! You're wrong!"
But the upside is that it promotes "what if" wargames that solve absolutely nothing, but are fun.

Thanks also…

Armand

🤔 Murphy.

You could be correct. Ohio was just recently a state. Not enough Buckeyes available to win the war for the Union in 1820. All those great Ohio Generals unavailable. 😂

Regarding 1820:

I would go along with Murphy on the general idea that the population and politicians were not as invested in the idea of "The Union" or the United States.

Not to mention that a lot of cause for the conflagration hadn't happened, as he points out.

To quote the great Springsteen "Can't start a fire without a spark"

(smile)

Armand