The War Of 1832-South Carolina Stands Alone

WI South Carolina had declared itself independent during the Nullification Crisis? Could it have settled the issue of secession (if not slavery) once and for all?

And what would be John C. Calhoun's fate after going up against Andrew Jackson?
 
WI South Carolina had declared itself independent during the Nullification Crisis? Could it have settled the issue of secession (if not slavery) once and for all?

And what would be John C. Calhoun's fate after going up against Andrew Jackson?

The secession of South Carolina in 1832 presents the rest of the South with two stark choices...

1) Secede, or

2) Support the Federal Government in coercing a sister State and forcing it back into the Union.

The other States of the South at that time opposed secession and believed the tariff crisis could be resolved by negotiation (as it ultimately was). But if they don't support South Carolina, they are basically giving up the right of future secession and agreeing to the premise that the Federal Government has the legal right to force a State to remain in the Union against it's will (Basically that's also the major reason why the other six of the first seven States which followed South Carolina out of the Union in early 1861 did so).

So I am not sure that it is possible for South Carolina to "stand alone" in these circumstances. At least SOME of the Southern States are going to leave the Union in support. If Andy Jackson moves to force them back into the Union militarily...and he will...there will be war, and other States will also have to make a choice (as did VA, TN, AR, and NC in 1861 following Fort Sumter). I think most of the South leaves the Union.

The interesting thing is, they might be supported by some of the Northern States. The idea that secession was illegal was far from established in the North at this time (indeed, it was not fully established in the North even in 1860). The manufacturing interests which were demanding high tariffs were mainly concentrated in the Northeast. The States of the Old Northwest were mainly agricultural at this time and were often at odds with the Northeast over tariffs and other issues during this period.

So you might well see a Civil War where the South and the Old Northwest are allied against the Northeast. How that war would turn out, who knows? The agricultural States were not nearly so far behind the industrial States in population and resources during this period as they were later.

It would be interesting, to say the least.
 
Sorry, but I really can't see the majority of the nation ditching Andrew Jackson to help South Carolina win a tariff fight.
 
Whether or not that is true (I don't know enough about it), just because a state's populace opposes secession doesn't mean the Governor does.
 
If there was a Civil War over the Nullification Crisis it wouldn't solve slavery at all.

Andrew Jackson was one of the biggest slaverowners in the US at the time and he was against abolishing slavery.
 
Sorry, but I really can't see the majority of the nation ditching Andrew Jackson to help South Carolina win a tariff fight.

It wouldn't be just a tariff fight. It would be a question of whether the Federal Government is going to be allowed to use armed force to coerce a State and force them back into the Union. That would have struck people in most areas of the country as tyranny.

Attitudes regarding secession were not as sharply divided at this time period as they were later on. Most people in all sections of the country actually believed the right of secession existed at this time.

New England and the Northeast, which had a vested interest in pushing the tariff, would definitely support Jackson. The other sections of the country, that's not nearly so certain.
 
Meh. He was a popular, and populist, president. From Tennessee. At the time he was seen as the first genuinely "Western" president, representing the majority of Americans, as opposed to the Virginia planters and New England businessmen who had dominated thus far.

And this time it's not - what? - 7 states being oppressed by an anti-slavery (which means anti-southern) Northerner in a clearly ideological struggle. Nor does the south feel that it has been losing its control in the government, because it hasn't yet, and doesn't look like it necessarily will. There has not been a decade of rising violence between the two involved factions, and honestly, Jackson didn't really fit into a faction in the immediately pre-Civil War sense. He was just Andrew Jackson.

You have one state being stubborn and one popular president being more so. It is possible that perceived tyranny could be an issue. I'll grant you that. Jackson was the first of a succession of men to greatly expand the role and powers of the presidency. Also he was an arrogant dick.

Still, that doesn't net you a mass secession by most of the country. At most you get 2-4 Deep South states joining in reaction to the ultimatum, and a declaration of neutrality or two by border states like North Carolina. Odds are still toward a "Union" victory, though a negotiated settlement after initial deadlock is also possible if the neutrals are in the right positions.
 
Lincoln was right in 1860 and in 1832 it is no less of a fact. South Carolina was too small to be a nation and too large to be an insane asylum.

And this time it's not - what? - 7 states being oppressed by an anti-slavery (which means anti-southern) Northerner in a clearly ideological struggle. Nor does the south feel that it has been losing its control in the government, because it hasn't yet, and doesn't look like it necessarily will. There has not been a decade of rising violence between the two involved factions, and honestly, Jackson didn't really fit into a faction in the immediately pre-Civil War sense. He was just Andrew Jackson.

This is the true cause of the ACW IMO. Up until the 1850s the South dominated national politics. But the South could see their dominance slowly slipping away as it would be certain that new states coming in would not be slave states. So they decided to take their ball and leave like petulant little boys.
 
First, as to the question of wide-spread "sympathy secession" movements as far as the Old Northwest, I think that robertp6165 has a fair point: there is going to be a lot of uncertainty about Jackson's use of force. However, the Northwest in particular supported the Tariff regime inaugurated by the Tariff of 1824 (eg. Van Buren used the Tariff of 1828 in part to get PA to support Jackson for the Presidency). Hence, I don't see Jackson precipitating widespread secession in Illinois or Ohio, but I do think you might see perhaps some variant of the Kentucky and Virginia Resolves: statments of dissent against the national government. At the most, you might see non-compliance with Federal orders (this has the potential to be pretty chaotic, since short of military compulsion the Federal government of the 1830s has very little ability to coerce states to comply with its orders).

Secondly, given how close the crisis got to confrontation, if South Carolina actually does act to formally secede, Jackson will act very fast to counter-act it, much faster than Buchanan did under very different circumstances. Of course, there could be some problem in getting authorization to act from Congress: OTL Congress agreed to Jackson's Force Bill in concert with the Compromise Tariff. If Jackson is put up against the wall, Henry Clay may use the chance to win some greater support for the American Plan from Jackson as a price. Because of the very dicey political situation, however, I think a united opposition to Jackson won't easily coalesce. Hence, I doubt you'd instantly see an alt-Confederacy spring into being, motivated simply by the issue of secession. TTL the issue is almost strictly the constitutional / legal one, rather than the deeper, cultural question of slavery. In 1861, it was much easier to feel that States Rights' was also a matter of Southern Culture. In 1833, much less so. Indeed, Jackson himself was an impassioned defender of both states rights (for example, in regards to internal improvements) and of slavery; he was also an ardent Unionist.

IMO the most likely result of a greater confronation with an explicit secession is a potential resolution of the legality of secession under the Constitution. I don't mean the issued is settled with the weight or finality that it was after OTL's ACW, but simply that it may well provoke a more formal elucidation of an official legal position for the Union in future. For example, a Constitutional ammendment similar to that adopted by the *USA in DoD: one that permits secession, but by outlining a means to permit it, makes it very, very hard to pull off (3/4s vote of the state legislature to petition Congress, a 2/3 or 3/4 vote of both Houses of Congress, followed by a convention to ratify the petition of the state legislature, for example). The importance here is less that the ACW would errupt in 1833, but more that the nature of the slavery debate will be different. If the South knows its right to secede is guaranteed, it may well be willing to coutenance a Lincoln-esque Free Soil Administration; at the very least, it may make a compromise more likely that would prevent a real ACW - style conflict. If the South secedes in such a manner that contradicts the Constitutional formula, than the North / Union may be presented with a clearer call to action to stop it.

Additionally, such a crisis would have profound effects on Jackson's 2nd term and on the Democrats for the next few years, particularly if he concedes some support for internal improvements to quiet the Old Northwest, for example. Perhaps Jackson's actions will provoke a more powerful Whig Party as an opposition and so greatly impact later political contests: in 1840 and 1844, the Whigs were fairly disorganized; 1844 was a particularly bitter pill since John Tyler's ascension to the Presidency proved to pit the Whig Party against itself.
 
What I Think you'd Get ...

Is Andrew Jackson PERSONALLY Infiltrating South Carolina's Governor's Mansion, And Beating Governor James Hamilton Jr. to Death with his Cane ...

What Can I Say, Andy Jack was a Major Bad-Ass!

:D
 
Top