AHC Have the nullification crisis result in a first American Civil War

Here is the challenge, with a pod no earlier than 1812, have the nullification crisis result in a civil war, it does not have to be as drastic as OTL civil war.
 
Simple. South Carolina doesn't back down, Andrew Jackson invades, the whole war is over in 6 months, and precedent is now firmly established that secession is unconstitutional.

So it is the ONLY US civil war.

What happens over slavery ~1860 becomes a very interesting question. Probably total governmental logjam for another decade.
 

samcster94

Banned
Simple. South Carolina doesn't back down, Andrew Jackson invades, the whole war is over in 6 months, and precedent is now firmly established that secession is unconstitutional.

So it is the ONLY US civil war.

What happens over slavery ~1860 becomes a very interesting question. Probably total governmental logjam for another decade.
Well, I can't really see a "Lost Cause" form over this conflict as it'd be short and slavery was not as central to it.
 
Since IOTL none of the other Southern states supported South Carolina(unlike in 1860)I
quite agree with those posters above who
state the war ITTL would have been over in
6 months. Slavery is another matter. AJ may
have been a staunch nationalist but he was
quite pro-slavery as well(he owned quite a
few slaves.)He wouldn't have touched it in
SC, & it would have remained unscathed in
the rest of the South as well. No reason thus
that ITTL too they wouldn't have clung to the
"peculiar institution" with all their might. Assuming then that ITTL the U. S. continues
to expand westward, as well as fight & defeat Mexico, we'd then still have that oh-so- divisive problem of whether the new territories would be free or slave. With all due respect to the OP I thus have to say I'd still see a Civil War(but here it would be the second)erupting over slavery as quite likely.
 
Last edited:
So, this would be a short civil war, but likely wouldn't affect the actual civil war.

Was the wartime budget large enough to even allow for 6months of in-fighting?
 
So, in case force is used on SC, there would not be consequences on that? As in, the fact force is used to beat down a state if they don't comply. Would the other states really be okay with that and not think "but what if we are the ones who aren't happy with something?" and simply seek another way or never try, or only accept it had to be done but still don't do something about it, or something like that?
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
So, in case force is used on SC, there would not be consequences on that? As in, the fact force is used to beat down a state if they don't comply. Would the other states really be okay with that and not think "but what if we are the ones who aren't happy with something?" and simply seek another way or never try, or only accept it had to be done but still don't do something about it, or something like that?

Good question.

---Will the Jackson Administration pursue/capture/prosecute/execute the South Carolina secessionist leadership?

a) On the one hand, this goes against the standard theory that longer war equals harsher terms, and shorter war means more conciliatory terms.

b) On the other hand, Jackson said that's what he would do.
 
So, in case force is used on SC, there would not be consequences on that? As in, the fact force is used to beat down a state if they don't comply. Would the other states really be okay with that and not think "but what if we are the ones who aren't happy with something?" and simply seek another way or never try, or only accept it had to be done but still don't do something about it, or something like that?

Sorry if this is considered necroing a thread, but that's a good question that I didn't want to leave hanging. To the politicians of other states, the federal government actually going to war over the nullification crisis is going to look very bad. Andrew Jackson making tough speeches about deposing the treasonous South Carolinian government is one thing. Jackson was a tough talker, so a certain amount of machismo is expected. But actually waging war on a constituent state? Especially when the conflict is predicated on an idea like state's rights, which held a lot of cachet among the antebellum political class? Especially when done by a president as controversial as Jackson?

Looking back from our modern day, it's hard to really understand how differently people conceived of the relationship between FedGov and the states. No matter how prosecution of the war goes down, the idea of the federal government "nailing South Carolina to the Union with bayonets" is going to galvanize Jackson's opponents, and possibly turning the Southern wing of the Democrats against him. Depending on how the war is prosecuted, there may even be movements to get him impeached.

Also, I have some doubts about the war between Federal forces and South Carolina really being as short as claimed. That analysis, I think, assumes too much of our modern idea of total war. The goals of the Federal government would not be to put the entire state to the torch, as in OTL's Civil War, but merely to depose South Carolina's state government. Especially considering the small size of the allotted budget (as already mentioned above), the war would be a lot more limited. Securing the countryside would be made difficult by the generally garbage conditions of Southern road infrastructure. I'm interested to hear some ideas about how the actual fighting would play out. It seems fairly obvious to me that the Federal forces try to secure Charleston first, being the largest city and best port in South Carolina, but what then?
 
Top