America without Andrew Jackson?
- Thread starter DjBaraca
- Start date
Well most would like to focus in on the many butterflies caused by the lack of the Andrew Jackson presidency. I am actually more interested in the results of the election before hand. Would John Quincy Adams have had enough support to win the election outright? Without the "corrupt bargain" hanging over him does he outdo his dad and win a second term? Or does the election get close enough to throw the election into the House again, and this time is the great compromiser able to use his position of Speaker to land the presidency? Interesting to think about it.
The John Quincy Adams factor is a good question. I think a second term is very possible in this case.
Henry Clay is also likely to become president at some point. (Even one term can greatly affects things).
The Van Buren and Polk presidencies would be butterflied away, Tyler's as well.
Everything here changes a lot of early US policies both internal and international.
No Indian Removal? Probably so, or at least milder one. This would have big butterflies on how the US expands and treats Natives as is does.
Expansion is a big change. I'm not sure what Adams or Clay would do in the case of the Texan Independence as in OTL? It is unlikely that they would annex on the go but maybe a future president would. The situation in Oregon and California would also be quite different.
The more time passes between Texan independence and annexation the less likely annexation becomes. Without Jacksonian Democrat pressure to expand this might be quite different.
A war against Britain over Oregon is unlikely at any point but if there is one it would be devastating for the US.
Would there still be a Civil War? Probably, but under different terms and situation. The outcome would then be different. It does not mean the South would win necessarily but the terms on which it looses would be different. That is if it is the south who is seceding.
By 1870 the US would be a completely different place.
Henry Clay is also likely to become president at some point. (Even one term can greatly affects things).
The Van Buren and Polk presidencies would be butterflied away, Tyler's as well.
Everything here changes a lot of early US policies both internal and international.
No Indian Removal? Probably so, or at least milder one. This would have big butterflies on how the US expands and treats Natives as is does.
Expansion is a big change. I'm not sure what Adams or Clay would do in the case of the Texan Independence as in OTL? It is unlikely that they would annex on the go but maybe a future president would. The situation in Oregon and California would also be quite different.
The more time passes between Texan independence and annexation the less likely annexation becomes. Without Jacksonian Democrat pressure to expand this might be quite different.
A war against Britain over Oregon is unlikely at any point but if there is one it would be devastating for the US.
Would there still be a Civil War? Probably, but under different terms and situation. The outcome would then be different. It does not mean the South would win necessarily but the terms on which it looses would be different. That is if it is the south who is seceding.
By 1870 the US would be a completely different place.
American society might be less egalitarian without a Jackson presidency. IIRC, he was the first president to come from humble origins; the previous presidents were all either Virginian planters or Boston brahmins. And, also, I seem to remember that some of the Washington establishment types were quite horrified by Jackson and his supporters' "common" behaviour at his inaugural ball. If presidents continue to come exclusively from upper-class birth into the 1830's and beyond, the idea that presidents should come from that class might become pretty strongly ingrained. So talking about how you grew up in a log cabin might be something 19th-century presidential candidates would avoid rather than embrace.
All of the above and a weaker Chief Executive to boot. Unless JQA fills that void, he some downright Federalist notions about Presidential power. I am less apocalyptic about this.
I think you are going to see a "Common" president fairly quickly actually as soon as we fight our eventual war with Mexico. I would say Harrison or Crockett will fill this void. I do wonder what would happen to Sam Houston in this scenario?
As for a Civil War depending upon how 1828 goes it could get pretty nasty. The reason the South never left in the 1830s was because they new that Jackson wasn't going to touch slavery, he may have been, in antebellum south, opinion a complete shit on Tarriffs but he wasn't going to touch slavery. Adams OTOH was an abolitionist, in his later years in Congress. I think we see an earlier Civil War with a much more even war that probably goes North because of Winfield Scott but is closely fought and ends up in some sort of compromise with gradual manumission (this probably won't be fought until 1830s-early 1840s0. After that I would have to research and stop speculating.
I think you are going to see a "Common" president fairly quickly actually as soon as we fight our eventual war with Mexico. I would say Harrison or Crockett will fill this void. I do wonder what would happen to Sam Houston in this scenario?
As for a Civil War depending upon how 1828 goes it could get pretty nasty. The reason the South never left in the 1830s was because they new that Jackson wasn't going to touch slavery, he may have been, in antebellum south, opinion a complete shit on Tarriffs but he wasn't going to touch slavery. Adams OTOH was an abolitionist, in his later years in Congress. I think we see an earlier Civil War with a much more even war that probably goes North because of Winfield Scott but is closely fought and ends up in some sort of compromise with gradual manumission (this probably won't be fought until 1830s-early 1840s0. After that I would have to research and stop speculating.
usertron2020
Donor
An Earlier Civil War?
Uh, no. I don't pretend to know the abolitionist history of the North outside New England, but I certainly know it here. Abolitionism in the North, even in New England, was seen as a radical force not to be engaged with, save for the Quakers. It was the South, for political reasons, that engaged the subject as if nearly every last northern white was providing shelter for the Underground Railroad. Most in the North simply couldn't be bothered by the subject in the timeframe which we all seem to be addressing (1830's,1840's). New England itself did not finally abolish slavery until the start of the 1840's. If the Yankees are only just getting around to freeing their OWN slaves, how much enthusiasm can you expect of them to demand total national abolition, even if it means civil war? It was simple brinkmanship on the part of southern politicians to threaten civil war whenever they didn't get everything they wanted on every possible issue. My God, South Carolina took up a secessionist movement (and a very hysterical one I might add) in 1837 over tariff rights!! The southerners before the civil war had civil war on the brain. The north simply was too willing to accommodate the south's wishes. The compromises made in 1820 and 1854 (before and after the period in question) saw to that. Almost every president from after the War of 1812 to Buchanan was either a southerner or southern sympathizer. The north was too ready to deal, the south would not secede just for the sake of seceding.
Umm No, New England was done by the '20s. New York freed all of its slaves in 1817. the Northwest Ordinance of 1787, guaranteed no slavery in the new Ohio and Michigan territories. The North didn't want to touch the issue because it was the 3rd rail of American Politics. Much like Entitlement reform today, except no one talks about it. There was an actual gag rule on slavery until I believe the 1850s. Slavery was the unspeakable issue. The Founding Fathers had deemed it so by failing to address the issue, and the South was more than happy to expand it while the North was more than happy to not engage it. There were more people for Abolition than you think, The radicals were just vocal about it is all. JQA for one, Zachary Taylor, Daniel Webster, Millard Fillmore. To name some prominent people. People just didn't talk about it. You are correct in pointing out, that it was a radical set for sure, but all it takes is one radical or one percieved radical to light the keg and then you get tea party protests.
Who said they were going to demand it? Maybe all the North wants to do is discuss the issue? I think that coupled with the "tarriff of abominations" will be enough to tip the South. Remember we are talking about Elites not the rank and file. Alot of people will be up in arms simply because there boss is.
To address your main point, nothing the South did in this period makes sense to our modern eyes, that doesn't mean it didn't make sense to them. On the issue of Tarriffs, these are huge issues because this basically the only tax that people paid at the time (liquor taxes was another) so it seems reasonable that people would get up in arms over Tarrif hikes during that time. All it takes is a president who doesn't want to compromise on slavery or Tarriffs and who doesn't scare the hell out of the South. The secession movement of 1832 had similar motives to 1837 (this is one I am less familiar with), in 1832, Jackson did two things that diffused the situation, 1, he changed the officers and customs officials in Charleston, 2, he agreed to reduce the tarriffs. This was a in 1832 movement was serious enough to warrant Jackson taking a 2nd look at policy and Jackson was someone who didn't back up for anyone. You are right the South had seccession on the brain and this why a politician less skilled than Jackson would almost certainly screw the pooch.
Another quibble, the compromise of 1850 (1854 is the Kansas-Nebraska act also a compromise) came about because Taylor refused to allow slavery in the new California territory. This was deemed treasonous by the South who thought Taylor one of their own (he was from Louisiana).
So much of this legacy is built around Jackson it is impossible to tell, if a compromise would even come up. Jackson was the overarching figure of this period of time. I think an Age of Jackson without Jackson will see much more polarized politics to the left and right (then they already were) , not to mention the nation was a powder keg waiting to explode and Jackson was the only man who could manage the situation because he was just as explosive as the times and was willing to threaten the steps necessary to get the South to toe the line. Any potential president in this period from '28-'60 does not have Jackson's force of personality any potential situation that would come up would not have a framework within which to work.
A few things I can think of off the top of my head--
1. Democratic-Republicans last a bit longer. Without Jackson and his supporters to split the party in favor of a return to Jeffersonian, rather than Madisonian, policies, the Democratic-Republicans might have another decade or so left in them. The Presidential Election of 1824 will go to John Quincy Adams, with William Crawford representing the anti-Eastern vote in said election, though he won't get anywhere near the support that Jackson did. J.Q. Adams probably doesn't face much opposition himself in '28, and stays in office until '32, when he's likely succeeded by Henry Clay. Somewhere around this period, laissez-faire elements within the party probably do break from it, under someone like Martin Van Buren, who IOTL organized the Democrats early on as it was. Two-party politics are back by 1840 at the very latest.
2. Central banking isn't as thoroughly demonized. The Second Bank of the United States is probably succeeded by a third, fourth, and so on. Van Buren's Democrats will probably rail against this, but probably won't do too much to actually change the status quo itself.
3. Expansion doesn't go as far as it did OTL. For reasons already mentioned.
4. Less egalitarian America. The Presidents from this point forward are probably just as likely to be from un-humble beginnings as before Jackson himself. A possible butterfly way down the road might be a more successful labor movement/socialist party(?).
1. Democratic-Republicans last a bit longer. Without Jackson and his supporters to split the party in favor of a return to Jeffersonian, rather than Madisonian, policies, the Democratic-Republicans might have another decade or so left in them. The Presidential Election of 1824 will go to John Quincy Adams, with William Crawford representing the anti-Eastern vote in said election, though he won't get anywhere near the support that Jackson did. J.Q. Adams probably doesn't face much opposition himself in '28, and stays in office until '32, when he's likely succeeded by Henry Clay. Somewhere around this period, laissez-faire elements within the party probably do break from it, under someone like Martin Van Buren, who IOTL organized the Democrats early on as it was. Two-party politics are back by 1840 at the very latest.
2. Central banking isn't as thoroughly demonized. The Second Bank of the United States is probably succeeded by a third, fourth, and so on. Van Buren's Democrats will probably rail against this, but probably won't do too much to actually change the status quo itself.
3. Expansion doesn't go as far as it did OTL. For reasons already mentioned.
4. Less egalitarian America. The Presidents from this point forward are probably just as likely to be from un-humble beginnings as before Jackson himself. A possible butterfly way down the road might be a more successful labor movement/socialist party(?).