Delayed New Madrid Earthquake

[stevep]

Having recently seen this video from the History Guy about the New Madrid earthquakes in 1812 which showed how widespread the shocks were felt, see from about 3:10 in the video for details I couldn't help wondering what might be the impact if it happened at a later time. Thinking of two scenarios.
a) A year later with the quakes coming [now] in late 1812 and early 1813. In the early stages of the 1812 conflict initial American attacks on both Canada and the Indian tribes under Tecumseh who became de-facto allies as a result foundered badly and a fair chunk of the old NW region stayed in Indian lands with British forces also active in areas.

While the main attacks came from further east, via New York and Pennsylvanian if those quakes had happened a year later it would have disrupted US operations along the Mississippi and in neighbouring region so would have had some impact. Might it be enough that at least some of the old NW area stays in Indian hands? Probably as a British protectorate as the Americans refused to accept any Indian nation as an independent state.

b) If it occurred 50 years later in 1861-62. Its going to cause a lot more deaths and devastation simply because the central region of the impact is a lot more settled. While the overall damage might be more on the northern side they could have the edge in that they have more resources and also its going to impact southern defences more. Island 10 is only a little south of New Madrid so any CSA defences there are likely to be trashed - albeit that it only became a defensive point a year or so later I think.

One wildcard here, given how much more religious people in both north and south were then is could it be seen by enough people to make a difference as a sign of divine anger at the war?

Anyway, interested to see what people think as might develop in either scenario.

 

[Skallagrim]

a) A year later with the quakes coming [now] in late 1812 and early 1813. In the early stages of the 1812 conflict initial American attacks on both Canada and the Indian tribes under Tecumseh who became de-facto allies as a result foundered badly and a fair chunk of the old NW region stayed in Indian lands with British forces also active in areas.

While the main attacks came from further east, via New York and Pennsylvanian if those quakes had happened a year later it would have disrupted US operations along the Mississippi and in neighbouring region so would have had some impact. Might it be enough that at least some of the old NW area stays in Indian hands? Probably as a British protectorate as the Americans refused to accept any Indian nation as an independent state.

I'm not sure how the forces were positioned at the time, but I'd argue that generally speaking, whichever side has the most people it can lose in the 'danger zone' at the time stands to get hit the hardest. The region was severely under-populated at the time, and supply lines were shit anyway. I'd say the biggest danger is being unlucky enough to be right close to the place of danger when things are at their worst. That could really fuck up an entire army, destroy their supplies, destroy their shelter, cause hygiene measures to fail and disease to spead...

b) If it occurred 50 years later in 1861-62. Its going to cause a lot more deaths and devastation simply because the central region of the impact is a lot more settled. While the overall damage might be more on the northern side they could have the edge in that they have more resources and also its going to impact southern defences more. Island 10 is only a little south of New Madrid so any CSA defences there are likely to be trashed - albeit that it only became a defensive point a year or so later I think.

This one is much clearer to me: it fucks over the Union, way worse than the Confederacy. When things are at their worst you have Grant and Sherman in the area. It's literally right before Sherman gets transferred. At the very least, this messes up all their plans, but if the ASBs are cruel, it kills them both. Now that really is earth-shattering.

On the Confederate side, I think Leonidas Polk is in the danger zone during the crucial period. Not nearly such a big loss, if he croaks. And on a ar more positive note, the butterflies from all this almost certainly mean that Albert Sidney Johnston doesn't die randomly the way he did in OTL. (He could of course still die due to ATL circumstances, but if he lives, that's a boon to the South.)

In general, the North has more men and more stuff and more (going-to-be-)prominent commanders to lose, here. Whereas the South may see one of its finer commanders saved from his OTL death, and will see various OTL Northern advances thwarted by an "act of God". Whatever they lose, the situation is almost certainly a net positive for them.

One wildcard here, given how much more religious people in both north and south were then is could it be seen by enough people to make a difference as a sign of divine anger at the war?

The impression of God being involved will be inescapable. Certainly, the South will feel so. How impressed the North is going to be with that argument may be called into question, but at least some of the anti-war voices will pipe up to make this point.

More importantly, though: the argument can gain traction over time, affecting the "mood" of the war, so to speak.

Especially with A.S. Johnston still alive, I think the South can and will capitalise on the Northern set-back here, thus securing Kentucky to a reasonable degree, and securing Tennessee fully. This also secures the Mississippi and thus Memphis, outright preventing the Vicksburg campaign. Which essentially means the Anaconda Plan has failed. It may naturally be re-attempted later, but the Union couldn't quite provide new armies out of thin air. (At least not capable ones.)

I think that, given this changed situation (and Union losses) in the West, they'd have to re-distribute available forces, which would in turn lead to slightly more success for Lee when he takes the fight North. Which means, as the old AH saw goes, no Emancipation Proclamation. By the end up 1862, the South can offer reasonable terms for peace. They'll probably be refuted, but Lincoln has no Grant, no Sherman, and no armies going down the Mississippi to link up with a prospective invasion via New Orleans.

Strategically, it looks like the South is winning, and I think you'll get -- if not foreign recognition of the CSA yet, then at least foreign pressure on Lincoln to allow mediation. (With the implication being "if you don't play ball, we will recognise the CSA.")

The South will continue to brag about how God's intervention saved their cause for the rest of recorded history.