Differences between a 1833 American Civil War and OTL American Civil War

The earliest POD for a earlier American Civil War can be found in the 1832 Nullification Crisis in which tensions between North and South over the tariffs of 1828 and 1832, which Southerners called the Tariffs of Abominations, reached a breaking point when South Carolina threatened to secede from the Union over it, even preparing to raise a military to resist federal enforcement of the tariffs in February 1833, followed up by Congress giving President Jackson the right to use military force against South Carolina in the Force Act in March 1933. On the same day, however, Congress passed the Tariff of 1833, which South Carolina accepted, ending the crisis.

South Carolina's attempt to raise a military indicated how far it was willing to go to protect it's 'state's rights' and the 'Tariffs of Abomination' were detested by a majority of the South, not just South Carolina. It's feasible to imagine that had South Carolina chosen to reject Congress's proposed Tariff of 1833, it could've just been the first state to leave the Union, as it was in OTL's 1860.

With that in mind, what would've been the differences between a 1833 American Civil War and our timeline's American Civil War in terms of progression, technology, etc?
 
It would not be an especially long one. With Jackson in the White House, you guarantee much of the Upper South and West onside. South Carolina would likely be at it alone. Its neighboring states that agreed on the tariff of abominations (Alabama, Georgia, and Mississippi) and generally speaking on the matter of the rights of states, condemned it for the recklessness of nullification. The North was protectionist, the Upper South was where Jackson was his most popular, and the Western states were where he was also quite popular and reliant on the federal government for protection and investment for settlement.

It should also be noted that South Carolina was somewhat peculiar in regards to just how much the tariff of abominations hurt it. The other states mentioned above were developing mass export plantation agriculture at the time but were still to a large degree being settled by subsistence farmers who were not exporting internationally, and the upper South states that also did export internationally grew crops that had a domestic market as well (tobacco sold well in the North; rice and indigo did not).

It was also peculiar politically in its ambitions: there is a reason that SC did not have popular vote elections before the Civil War, and not just because of its aristocratic political character. Rather, it was because they would use a late assigning of electors to try to punch above its weight in impact the results of Presidential Elections. This was resented to the point where Congress in the 1840s decided on a fixed date for elections, when beforehand, it was a gradual reporting process.

The kind of Southern unity that would form later on because of the polarity of the issue of slavery was not there in 1833. Rather, New England was seen as the deviant political bloc at the time and had regional political coherence. It would not be until the 1844 election when you could start to see new regional blocs forming.
 
Last edited:
On the one hand, the north was not at the level of industrial and economic power vis a vis the south compared to otl. On the other hand, Andrew Jackson, not to mention he's a pretty popular president at the time.
 
Top