The American Experiment- A Nullification Timeline
- Thread starter The Tai-Pan
- Start date
- Status
Awesome. Yes, Virginia (by population) is more divided (due to Western Virginia) but the political power is held by planters and such enough to swing things. Tennessee is much the same. The unionist areas are just not politically powerful. That said both North and South are more divided then in OTL Civil War. Also, strictly speaking Louisiana wold be pink, with red dots invading....
Oh, and Michigan is a state!
Last edited:
It makes sense. For all of Clay's ambitions, he considered himself to be truly a patriot and the thought of secession would have horrified him to the core. I doubt he likes Jackson in the least, but he would be willing to work with him if he felt it was for the good of the nation.
Quick thing: in your last post, I think you mentioned Webster being named Secretary of State, so I don't think he would be able to lead a filibuster, fiery or not
Quick and dirty "state of affairs" map. Jacksonland in blue and dark blue (occupied), Calhounistan in red, and Neutraland in pink. I'm surprised Tennessee and Virginia didn't opt for neutrality, but I'm guessing the inhabitants of those states are divided on the matter.
Awesome map! Although (unless I missed it) wouldn't Michigan be a state already? In OTL it became a state in 1837.
Quick thing: in your last post, I think you mentioned Webster being named Secretary of State, so I don't think he would be able to lead a filibuster, fiery or not
Excellent catch.
Let's say Webster master minded it?
Yes yes, but does Michigan really matter?
Anyway, map has been fixed.Yes yes, but does Michigan really matter?
Matters to Lewis Cass....
Yes yes, but does Michigan really matter?
Well, I'm hesitant on the Lower Peninsula; but the UP matters, a lot
A bit. I mean, if you were talking about Kansas or Dakota, I'd buy it.....Yes yes, but does Michigan really matter?
In addition, that may or may not be the correct shape for Missouri, the Platte Purchase (which gives the added Northwest area north of the Missouri River) was approved by the US Senate in February 1837, and my guess is that other things have taken higher priority.
It's *completely* irrational, but that map bugs me for another reason. I find the likelihood of any TL where West Virginia is part of West Virginia and the remaining states in the contiguous US end up with OTL borders to be extremely small.
It's *completely* irrational, but that map bugs me for another reason. I find the likelihood of any TL where West Virginia is part of West Virginia and the remaining states in the contiguous US end up with OTL borders to be extremely small.
Oh the map is mostly incorrect. It's just there to crudely show how things stand pre-war.
Roach, Mary. Columbia: A Liberal History. New Orleans: Southern Star Printing, 2000. Print.
The myth that the founding of Columbia was a calm, genteel affair, taking place among sophisticated Southrons of equal standing and sweeping vision (as opposed to the brawling Northerners busy tearing the nation apart with the Neutrality Movement) dates back to the founding itself.
In early 1837, as Southron representatives from all over the South gathered in Columbia, South Carolina, Calhoun stated this clearly.
“The North is rich and powerful but she has many elements of weakness and division....While the South, on the contrary, has a homogeneous population, and a common bond of union which renders us powerful and united.”
This myth of Southron unity persists in many writings on the subject and was assiduously promoted by the Founders themselves. Current research, and an accurate reading of the raw political landscape. however, has upended this traditional and comfortable view.
A common (and inaccurate) historical representation of the Southron Founders
The scene being set in South Carolina was influenced by the outside world as much as, or more, than Washington D.C. at the same time. Factionalism, power politics, petty hates, personal aggrandizement and outright violence were just as prevalent in the South as the North.
The uneven nature of the South naturally led to these political imbalances, as well as the chaotic events of the time. The strongest faction seated at the tables in Columbia were the large planters, of course.
Mainly growing cotton, the planters were the primary drivers of the economic economy. While numerically few, the large-scale plantation owners were the face of the South. Their crops, destined for mills in New England and Great Britain, provided the base for the entire economy of the South. They dominated the political scenes of most of the Southern states, suffering few rivals or setbacks. When Indians needed cleared off land or blacks controlled more tightly, the planters could always rely on the states for support. As one contemporary wit put it, ‘Planters whistler, governors jump’. Families like the Lees in Virginia or the Hamptons of South Carolina were long used to privilege and influence. With a long tradition of both hard and soft power, it was the elite planter class who stood strongest in Columbia.
But they did not stand alone, despite some of the later myths. The American South was a variegated place and not simply a land of wide cotton fields dotted with the odd plantation ‘Big House’. One rival, and a growing one, were the various industrialists of the South.
Limited in geography, this nascent but growing class was based in the urban centers of the South. There were the powerful traders and steamboat men on the Mississippi, providing the lifeline of Western trade. New Orleans was a hub of such ‘commercial men’, ranging from early railroad promoters to cotton press makers and the powerful slave traders. Virginia had manufacturers of engines, guns, iron foundries; led by men like John Mason, a planter turned foundry owner. Even agrarian Georgia had gold miners and their lucrative operations. While lacking the power and prestige of the planter elite, these early industrialists were very visible in Columbia, feeling that not only were they the true future of the South but that they should have a say in the new nation being built.
John Mason, the face of the 'industrial' South
Even more sidelined, both at the time and in history, than the industrialists were the representatives of the small-hold farmers and poorer white class. Ironically, they had been politically energized when Andrew Jackson came to power, who had long used the lower classes as a ticket to power. Expanded suffrage, looser banking, and a drive for Manifest Destiny had all conspired to unleash this powerful new force on the Southern stage. Focused in the more rural, undeveloped Western states, these small farmers were some of the most violent and unrestrained political players in the South. Representing a hope for a ‘Democracy led by the Common Man’ it was these ‘rough and ready’ types who had led the way in Mississippi and Alabama, showing the true force of Southron spirit over the question of independence. It would be these men who would make up the ranks of any army formed, and so felt they should have a say in Columbia.
Sadly, this chance was generally ignored. The established political classes saw the ‘common man’ as a tool, not a partner. Few, if any, of the well-bred plantation owners saw any advantage to working with the rambunctious freehold farmers of places like Arkansas of rural Alabama. That said, the elites were eager to offer the appearance of cooperation and aligning these men with the secessionist cause. The poorer whites were not dupes, however and the friction between rich and poor were one of the biggest fault lines at the Founding.
Last, but not least, were the intellectuals and writers who gathered around Columbia in those heady times like moths to a flame. Famed men like Nathaniel Tucker and William Gilmore lent an air of Southron sophistication and cultural weight to the proceedings and were eagerly courted by all sides. It was from their pens that the more elegant and refined appeals would flow.
Tucker, the cultural voice of the Southron spirit
Each faction was split into a myriad of regional and personal groups, many opposed to others quite similar. Agendas of every type combined and collided in those hot days as the various state representatives (and some men uninvited) tried to hammer out a new nation. The planters simply wanted to maintain the status quo without Northern interference. A state focused on the preservation of their power and the paramouncy of state powers. The industrialists wanted an active government that would promote Southern industry and create a climate ‘agreeable to local investment’. The poor whites wanted a democracy where votes would carry true weight, where the economy wouldn’t be controlled by rich bankers and where land would be open to settlement from sea to shining sea.
With all of this disagreement and conflicting interest, how did those men achieve anything, let alone give birth to a nation? Several factors worked in their favor. The aggressive actions of the North, the uneven balance of power, and some general agreements that crossed all boundaries all played a part.
The actions of the North, despite later mythologizing, were the main driving factors. It was fear of a Northern invasion that truly changed the simple disaffection and disappointment with the United States into a drive for secession. The more President Jackson ranted about ‘treason’ and John Quincy Adams hinted as a diabolical ‘Slave Power’ the more united the South became and more oil was spilled over the rough waters in Columbia. The perfect example is Jackson and Congress asking for a national draft. The threat alone was enough to push entire states into the Southern camp, and made the compromisers’ jobs in Columbia much easier. With the North threatening the very existence of the South, differences began to seem petty.
The imbalance of power also helped the South forge a consensus. The planter class was powerful enough to often override even the most strenuous objections from the other factions. It was not only the matter of wealth and power, it was also that of experience and training. Many planters had spent their entire lives in government and law and were used to complicated debates and negotiations. Take a man like James Henry Hammond, a powerful South Carolina planter. Married into the powerful Hampton family he had spent his whole life in the rarified air of government and foreign travel. It should come as no surprise that forceful, trained and confident men like this would dominate the bickering at Columbia.
Lastly, the warring factions did have some broad strokes in common. All believed that the new nation should be based on evangelical Protestant Christian values, inside a capitalistic framework. The exact extent of both of those were debated, but the general idea was never seriously challenged. More importantly, all sides agreed on the supremacy of the white race and the continuation of slavery.
The Protestant faith, one of the pillars of Southern Society, Louisiana aside.
The existing racial hierarchy was approved by all, and never questioned at any level, no matter how divergent the Southern groups debating. While the North did not openly suggest abolition, the anti-slavery movement was growing and it provided another glue to hold the South together. Slavery was the great unspoken ‘quality’ secession would defend from grasping Federal power. The determination to keep the African race subservient was a powerful motivator for compromise and alliance.
So it was on these agreements that the men in Columbia tried to form a nation. Like their predecessors in 1776, they did not find it an easy task. Even choosing a name for the new nation proved to be a difficult task. Every suggestion told of the faction behind it.
The populist, rural farmers promoted names like Appalachia, maximizing their impact and part of the new nation. The established planters and elites favored names showing a continuation of the past such as the Confederated States of America or Southern League of States. The poetic dramatists put forth grandiose names such as Atlantica or even Secesslandia. In the end, a compromise was reached. Partially inspired by their surroundings and by suggestions from the old Continental Congress, they chose Columbia as the name of the new nation.
After the name came the real work, the actual details that made up a nation. Much of it was shamelessly copied from the United States (to the chagrin of some of the more ardent secessionists). The general structure of the government was the same, consisting of a bicameral Congress, an independent Judiciary and a separately elected Executive known as the President. While the details were still being hammered out, the onrush of war left little time for fine debate.
The Republic of Columbia still existed more on paper then in reality, and it was governed more by personalities than rules. The selection of for the new government started at the top, the president. With no way to hold an election, the first President of Columbia would be chosen by the assembled representatives.
John C. Calhoun was the obvious choice. A fire eating secessionist and leader during the Charleston Uprising, no one could doubt his commitment to the cause, as well as his governmental experience. The harsh and unwavering South Carolinan had his share of foes however, and proved to often be a divisive figure in debate. Instead he was given the office of Vice president but soon became the real power in the fledgling nation. The presidency was instead given to James Hammond, a well-liked but generally powerless figurehead. After that debate the rest of the Cabinet came together easily enough, based on a patchwork of skills, talents and political favors.
President
James Henry Hammond
Vice President
John C. Calhoun
Secretary of State
William Yancey
Secretary of the Treasury
William Caroll
Secretary of War
John Tyler
Attorney General
James C. Jones
Postmaster General
Hugh Lawson White
Secretary of the Navy
Abel Upshur
Despite the progress on the construction of a civil state however, Columbia was nation born of war, for war. As Calhoun and the others struggled to unite a disordered South, all looked to the North to see how and where the first blows would land.
The myth that the founding of Columbia was a calm, genteel affair, taking place among sophisticated Southrons of equal standing and sweeping vision (as opposed to the brawling Northerners busy tearing the nation apart with the Neutrality Movement) dates back to the founding itself.
In early 1837, as Southron representatives from all over the South gathered in Columbia, South Carolina, Calhoun stated this clearly.
“The North is rich and powerful but she has many elements of weakness and division....While the South, on the contrary, has a homogeneous population, and a common bond of union which renders us powerful and united.”
This myth of Southron unity persists in many writings on the subject and was assiduously promoted by the Founders themselves. Current research, and an accurate reading of the raw political landscape. however, has upended this traditional and comfortable view.
A common (and inaccurate) historical representation of the Southron Founders
The scene being set in South Carolina was influenced by the outside world as much as, or more, than Washington D.C. at the same time. Factionalism, power politics, petty hates, personal aggrandizement and outright violence were just as prevalent in the South as the North.
The uneven nature of the South naturally led to these political imbalances, as well as the chaotic events of the time. The strongest faction seated at the tables in Columbia were the large planters, of course.
Mainly growing cotton, the planters were the primary drivers of the economic economy. While numerically few, the large-scale plantation owners were the face of the South. Their crops, destined for mills in New England and Great Britain, provided the base for the entire economy of the South. They dominated the political scenes of most of the Southern states, suffering few rivals or setbacks. When Indians needed cleared off land or blacks controlled more tightly, the planters could always rely on the states for support. As one contemporary wit put it, ‘Planters whistler, governors jump’. Families like the Lees in Virginia or the Hamptons of South Carolina were long used to privilege and influence. With a long tradition of both hard and soft power, it was the elite planter class who stood strongest in Columbia.
But they did not stand alone, despite some of the later myths. The American South was a variegated place and not simply a land of wide cotton fields dotted with the odd plantation ‘Big House’. One rival, and a growing one, were the various industrialists of the South.
Limited in geography, this nascent but growing class was based in the urban centers of the South. There were the powerful traders and steamboat men on the Mississippi, providing the lifeline of Western trade. New Orleans was a hub of such ‘commercial men’, ranging from early railroad promoters to cotton press makers and the powerful slave traders. Virginia had manufacturers of engines, guns, iron foundries; led by men like John Mason, a planter turned foundry owner. Even agrarian Georgia had gold miners and their lucrative operations. While lacking the power and prestige of the planter elite, these early industrialists were very visible in Columbia, feeling that not only were they the true future of the South but that they should have a say in the new nation being built.
John Mason, the face of the 'industrial' South
Even more sidelined, both at the time and in history, than the industrialists were the representatives of the small-hold farmers and poorer white class. Ironically, they had been politically energized when Andrew Jackson came to power, who had long used the lower classes as a ticket to power. Expanded suffrage, looser banking, and a drive for Manifest Destiny had all conspired to unleash this powerful new force on the Southern stage. Focused in the more rural, undeveloped Western states, these small farmers were some of the most violent and unrestrained political players in the South. Representing a hope for a ‘Democracy led by the Common Man’ it was these ‘rough and ready’ types who had led the way in Mississippi and Alabama, showing the true force of Southron spirit over the question of independence. It would be these men who would make up the ranks of any army formed, and so felt they should have a say in Columbia.
Sadly, this chance was generally ignored. The established political classes saw the ‘common man’ as a tool, not a partner. Few, if any, of the well-bred plantation owners saw any advantage to working with the rambunctious freehold farmers of places like Arkansas of rural Alabama. That said, the elites were eager to offer the appearance of cooperation and aligning these men with the secessionist cause. The poorer whites were not dupes, however and the friction between rich and poor were one of the biggest fault lines at the Founding.
Last, but not least, were the intellectuals and writers who gathered around Columbia in those heady times like moths to a flame. Famed men like Nathaniel Tucker and William Gilmore lent an air of Southron sophistication and cultural weight to the proceedings and were eagerly courted by all sides. It was from their pens that the more elegant and refined appeals would flow.
Tucker, the cultural voice of the Southron spirit
Each faction was split into a myriad of regional and personal groups, many opposed to others quite similar. Agendas of every type combined and collided in those hot days as the various state representatives (and some men uninvited) tried to hammer out a new nation. The planters simply wanted to maintain the status quo without Northern interference. A state focused on the preservation of their power and the paramouncy of state powers. The industrialists wanted an active government that would promote Southern industry and create a climate ‘agreeable to local investment’. The poor whites wanted a democracy where votes would carry true weight, where the economy wouldn’t be controlled by rich bankers and where land would be open to settlement from sea to shining sea.
With all of this disagreement and conflicting interest, how did those men achieve anything, let alone give birth to a nation? Several factors worked in their favor. The aggressive actions of the North, the uneven balance of power, and some general agreements that crossed all boundaries all played a part.
The actions of the North, despite later mythologizing, were the main driving factors. It was fear of a Northern invasion that truly changed the simple disaffection and disappointment with the United States into a drive for secession. The more President Jackson ranted about ‘treason’ and John Quincy Adams hinted as a diabolical ‘Slave Power’ the more united the South became and more oil was spilled over the rough waters in Columbia. The perfect example is Jackson and Congress asking for a national draft. The threat alone was enough to push entire states into the Southern camp, and made the compromisers’ jobs in Columbia much easier. With the North threatening the very existence of the South, differences began to seem petty.
The imbalance of power also helped the South forge a consensus. The planter class was powerful enough to often override even the most strenuous objections from the other factions. It was not only the matter of wealth and power, it was also that of experience and training. Many planters had spent their entire lives in government and law and were used to complicated debates and negotiations. Take a man like James Henry Hammond, a powerful South Carolina planter. Married into the powerful Hampton family he had spent his whole life in the rarified air of government and foreign travel. It should come as no surprise that forceful, trained and confident men like this would dominate the bickering at Columbia.
Lastly, the warring factions did have some broad strokes in common. All believed that the new nation should be based on evangelical Protestant Christian values, inside a capitalistic framework. The exact extent of both of those were debated, but the general idea was never seriously challenged. More importantly, all sides agreed on the supremacy of the white race and the continuation of slavery.
The Protestant faith, one of the pillars of Southern Society, Louisiana aside.
The existing racial hierarchy was approved by all, and never questioned at any level, no matter how divergent the Southern groups debating. While the North did not openly suggest abolition, the anti-slavery movement was growing and it provided another glue to hold the South together. Slavery was the great unspoken ‘quality’ secession would defend from grasping Federal power. The determination to keep the African race subservient was a powerful motivator for compromise and alliance.
So it was on these agreements that the men in Columbia tried to form a nation. Like their predecessors in 1776, they did not find it an easy task. Even choosing a name for the new nation proved to be a difficult task. Every suggestion told of the faction behind it.
The populist, rural farmers promoted names like Appalachia, maximizing their impact and part of the new nation. The established planters and elites favored names showing a continuation of the past such as the Confederated States of America or Southern League of States. The poetic dramatists put forth grandiose names such as Atlantica or even Secesslandia. In the end, a compromise was reached. Partially inspired by their surroundings and by suggestions from the old Continental Congress, they chose Columbia as the name of the new nation.
After the name came the real work, the actual details that made up a nation. Much of it was shamelessly copied from the United States (to the chagrin of some of the more ardent secessionists). The general structure of the government was the same, consisting of a bicameral Congress, an independent Judiciary and a separately elected Executive known as the President. While the details were still being hammered out, the onrush of war left little time for fine debate.
The Republic of Columbia still existed more on paper then in reality, and it was governed more by personalities than rules. The selection of for the new government started at the top, the president. With no way to hold an election, the first President of Columbia would be chosen by the assembled representatives.
John C. Calhoun was the obvious choice. A fire eating secessionist and leader during the Charleston Uprising, no one could doubt his commitment to the cause, as well as his governmental experience. The harsh and unwavering South Carolinan had his share of foes however, and proved to often be a divisive figure in debate. Instead he was given the office of Vice president but soon became the real power in the fledgling nation. The presidency was instead given to James Hammond, a well-liked but generally powerless figurehead. After that debate the rest of the Cabinet came together easily enough, based on a patchwork of skills, talents and political favors.
President
James Henry Hammond
Vice President
John C. Calhoun
Secretary of State
William Yancey
Secretary of the Treasury
William Caroll
Secretary of War
John Tyler
Attorney General
James C. Jones
Postmaster General
Hugh Lawson White
Secretary of the Navy
Abel Upshur
Despite the progress on the construction of a civil state however, Columbia was nation born of war, for war. As Calhoun and the others struggled to unite a disordered South, all looked to the North to see how and where the first blows would land.
So good update? Good choices for people for positions? Seem realistic?
I am also looking for a Flag for Columbia. So open to suggestions, ideas, thoughts on that.
It was very good; I enjoyed reading it! My only suggestion would be to weaken the section about Evangelical Protestantism. Although the South is very religious in the modern era, that is more of a post-war development.
Someone who knows more than me, can correct me if I'm wrong; but I was always under the impression that the South during this era was one of the least religious parts of the nation; especially amongst the Planter class. Evangelical faith would have been important amongst the Scots-Irish of the Appalachians, true; but elsewhere, religion wasn't nearly as strong as, say, New England or the Old Northwest.
Ah, but you have to recall, this is being written later through the lens of a New Orleans professor, with an axe to grind, in 2000. But your point is well-taken!
- Status