WI: American Politics with No Andrew Jackson

POD: In January of 1825, after he failed to secure the necessary votes in the Electoral College, Andrew Jackson was in a bad mood. Hoping to blow off some steam, he goes for a walk and ends up being accosted by one of his many political rivals. Words are exchanged, a duel is challenged and accepted.

Although Andrew Jackson is a champion dueler, the fates are not with him that day. During the challenge, his pistol misfires and he accidently shoots himself in the leg. Despite the best efforts of doctors, he develops an infection and dies after lingering for several days, raving madly about political conspiracies and lizard people. (Sorry, I want to take him out in as embarrassing way as I can).

This means, that when the House convenes to vote for the President, it suddenly comes down to a contest between Adams, Crawford and Clay. Jackson's supporters split between the three candidates. After a series of votes, Clay realizes he can't trump, and throws his support behind Adams as OTL.

Of course, with no Jackson, there is now no charges of a corrupt bargain - even his most diehard supporters can't complain he didn't win, when their hero is currently resting six feet under (a rather bad position from which to be elected).

So: how does American politics develop in the antebellum period? Andrew Jackson, love him or hate him, cast a large shadow over the entire era and his governing coalition helped form the nucleus of the Democratic Party, while his opponent's eventually consolidated into the Whigs.

It seems likely that a two party system would develop during this era, regardless. However, with different candidates and platforms to coalesce around, these parties could well be different than those that appeared in OTL.

Thoughts?
 
Henry Clay as POTUS


Its certainly a possibility, and I would love to get Clay in there - but Clay certainly had political problems of his own. So, would a two term Adams presidency, followed by Clay as his heir apparent cement their ideology as the dominant one in the country? And, if so, what does the opposing party that develops look like? Adams, minus the Jacksonians trying to stop him at every term, would probably have been a semi-dynamic President, and I suspect that Clay would have been as well - so, even if the dominant political philosophy roughly resembles Whigism of OTL it won't have the "congressional supremacy" bent that it developed in OTL.
 
So major themes are:
Tarriff
Internal improvements
Manifest destiny
Expansion of slavery

Seems like Calhoun might lead a faction of anti-Clay

The Whigs were more or less a coalition of anti-Jackson, anti-Democrats.

Without Jackson is there a unified Democrat party?

Would Adams, Webstet, Clay still be united?

To me it might be several parties based on the major topics and sections.

To me, seems like Clay would dominate, unite West and Northeast.

So American System is adopted.

Rest could be no Texas annexation, no war with Mexico ...

Increased sectionalism and secession of Deep South sooner. Note, border states may stay with Union and secession is 7 or 8 states.
 
OTL, Adams made it by a bare 13-11, so if the three Clay states don't vote for him, he needs to pick up at least three Jackson ones in lieu. Any thoughts on which ones?

If he can't, then it could go to several ballots, with the Crawford states (OTL these were VA, GA, NC and DE) having a "casting vote". I suspect they'd prefer Adams, but can't be sure.
 
Last edited:
OTL< Adams made it by a bare 13-11, so if the three Clay states don't vote for him, he needs to pick up at least three Jackson ones in lieu. Any thoughts on which ones?

If he can't, then it could go too several ballots, with the Crawford states (OTL these were VA, GA, NC and DE) having a "casting vote". I suspect they'd prefer Adams, but can't be sure.

Just off the top of my head, I would suspect the VA, NC and DE would be the best bets. However, I suspect that Clay, unless he's able to make any substantial headway against Crawford in the South, would realize the game is up (he's only in the contest due to Jackson's death) and would throw his support to Adams. Especially if he given the Secretary of State which would make him Adam's successor.
 
This means, that when the House convenes to vote for the President, it suddenly comes down to a contest between Adams, Crawford and Clay.

I disagree. The electoral votes have been cast, and Clay was fourth, therefore not eligible. Jackson is ineligible because he's dead. (Or is he? If he is elected, the post of President immediately becomes vacant and Calhoun becomes President. In 1872, three posthumous electoral votes were cast for Greeley.)

That leaves Adams and Crawford, and Crawford is barely alive. Adams gets in without making any deals. Does he still appoint Clay as Secretary of State?

Who becomes the leader of the Jacksonians? Calhoun, probably. He'll soon be at odds with Adams.
 

Skallagrim

Banned
@Anarch King of Dipsodes is absolutely right about the electoral process. It's a purely Adams versus Crawford thing at this stage, and Adams wins that easily. As for factions: without Jackson, there is indeed no "corrupt bargain", but Clay and Adams were in many respects of the same "wing" within the rather universal Democratic-Republican party. That is: they got a lot of their ideas from the former Federalists' ideology. Clay probably still gets a position in the cabinet, though it may not be State.

Without Jackson attacking Adams's integrity, Adams probably gets two terms. The main opposition leaders will probably be Calhoun and Van Buren, who will at this point be likely to form a united opposition. Clay will happily be pushing for his American system, and without Jackson's hounding, Adams will be inclined to fully support it. So, as @hzn5pk said: tarriffs and internal improvements. (But do note: Clay was the big man for western interests: perhaps he can get the west to support this American System by getting Adams to offer western states some... extra incentive?)

All in all, it was mostly the (deep) south that was really opposed to high tarriffs, internal improvements and more federal powers. So if Adams pushes for this, Calhoun is going to be the logical opponent. So suppose there's unrest, but without Jackson, Adams gets a second term. Then 1832 comes around, and Clay wants to succeed Adams. He goes all-out in favour of the American System (which he would, it being his big idea, and seemingly being on a roll in this ATL).

Calhoun mightily opposes it, but with Clay taking the west (which he potentially could, if he can get Adams to spoil the western states with lots of benefits derived from the American System), Calhoun essentially wins only in the (deep) south. Clay has probably already announced his goal of further tarriffs and internal improvements. At this point, a sitiation arises that is basically "postponed nullification crisis meets earlier secession crisis".

Interesting times!
 
So Clay would win 1832 election and probably 1836 as well.

What was Clay's view on Indian removal of the SE civilized tribes? Being from Kentucky, I would imagine that he would be for it, or at least not opposed to it.

Who would be after Clay? Perhaps a Democratic resurgence after the Panic of 1837 (would there be a Panic ITTL?). Who would lead the Dems? Maybe we would have somewhat of a second order counterfactual happening where the Dark Horse, James Polk emerges. Or would Van Buren be the likely leader. Perhaps Polk is the compromise candidate for 1840 that would win over Van Buren and Northern Dems and Calhoun and Southern Dems. Polk becomes Pres, 4 years earlier on an expansion plank of admitting Texas to Union, settling Oregon, obtaining New Mexico and California. So 1840 would see Polk win over Tippecanoe and ??? too (I doubt that John Tyler would be a Nationalist Republican, Wig, or anti-Jackson ITTL)
 

Skallagrim

Banned
So Clay would win 1832 election and probably 1836 as well.

What was Clay's view on Indian removal of the SE civilized tribes? Being from Kentucky, I would imagine that he would be for it, or at least not opposed to it.

Who would be after Clay? Perhaps a Democratic resurgence after the Panic of 1837 (would there be a Panic ITTL?). Who would lead the Dems? Maybe we would have somewhat of a second order counterfactual happening where the Dark Horse, James Polk emerges. Or would Van Buren be the likely leader. Perhaps Polk is the compromise candidate for 1840 that would win over Van Buren and Northern Dems and Calhoun and Southern Dems. Polk becomes Pres, 4 years earlier on an expansion plank of admitting Texas to Union, settling Oregon, obtaining New Mexico and California. So 1840 would see Polk win over Tippecanoe and ??? too (I doubt that John Tyler would be a Nationalist Republican, Wig, or anti-Jackson ITTL)

Depending on the situation, Clay may not get eight years.

Assuming something like the scenario I outlined earlier occurs, that is. There are basically two possible ways this whole "no Jackson" thing can play out. As I argued, Clay will very likely be part of the Adams administration, if not on state, then probably treasury. Considering what Adams and Clay believed in OTL, and based on Jackson being not there to ruin the administration, there will very likely be a version of the American System implemented. As I see it, everything depends on whether Clay can use his popularity in the west to sell the system there. And a lot of that depends on whether Adams is willing to allocate some funds - essentially pork barrel - to curry favour in the western states via extra internal improvements etc. over there. Clay will certainly push for a policy like that, and I suspect Adams will go with it.

If he doesn't manage to curry favour in the West, however, Calhoun probably wins in '32, mainly based on support in the south and the west. He'll set about dismantling the American system again, and things go from there. That's one scenario, but not the most interesting or likely one.

If Adams and Clay get the western states on their side (which I consider probable), opposition to the American System will be mostly a southern affair, but it will be a defining issue there. Calhoun will be their man, of course. Throughout the Adams administration, a sentiment not unlike that of the nullification crisis and the period running up to Lincoln's election in OTL 1860 will be building up in the south. And when Calhoun loses in '32, but is universally the winner in the southern states, I think secession will be a very real option.

So the question becomes: how do departing president Adams and president-elect Clay deal with that? Clay is the great compromiser in OTL, but in this ATL, a compromise would mean that he'd be a lame duck of a president. The Calhoun-led south is essentially saying "lower the tarriffs considerably or we secede!" -- and lowering the tarriffs means the American System can't be financed, which would kill Clay's dream. In OTL, he was often willing to compromise, but notably not when his own favourite plans had a good chance of succeeding by taking a hard line. (For instance, during Adams's OTL administration, Jackson's ally Martin Van Buren deliberately pushed the "Tariff of Abominations" through Congress as a ploy to shift the South into the Jackson camp; Clay was fully aware of Van Buren's machinations... but was unwilling to shift his position on high tariffs: he figured he could get the high tarriff to stick, and he was willing to risk crisis to get it done.)

In this ATL situation, would Clay compromise? Or would he led the crisis come to a head? And if he's willing to compromise, will he be ready to make an offer that Calhoun would accept? After eight years of Adams and the American System, it won't just be South Carolina threatening to secede. It'll be at least Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina and North Carolina (taking Florida terr. with them). Possibly Virginia as well (though certainly not Tennessee, under these circumstances). Calhoun will have a lot of weight to throw around: he may well demand a lowering of the tarriff so drastic that Clay will never offer (or consider) it. And in this ATL, there is no Jackson to threaten to "secede Calhoun's head from his body" if he secedes from the Union. Even if Adams and Clay are ready to threaten military action... they won't be fighting SC, but multiple southern states.

What I'm saying is: either a deal is reached, in which case Clay is a lame duck president who probably only gets four years... or a deal is not reached, in which case we're probably looking at an earlier Civil War. And I consider that last outcome not at all unlikely. If such a Civil War erupts, whether Clay gets eight years depends on whether he wins. And that's no certainty. 1832 is much more favourable to the south than 1860, even if there are fewer southern states seceding.

I'd say that if they get Virginia in their camp, they'll win their secession struggle, and we end up with a Calhoun-led confederacy. If they don't get Virginia on their side, it'll be a far more close-run thing... but a successful secession war can still not be ruled out.

Such chaos! And all for want of Andrew Jackson...! ;)
 
I think that it is a little too early for secession talk. South Carolina maybe, but for the whole South, probably too early.

ITTL, Clay may very well compromise with Calhoun on the tariffs. In fact OTL, that is exactly what he did in OTL 1833, Clay worked with Calhoun to end the nullification crisis. Clay was not as bombastic as Jackson to threaten to go down to South Carolina and hang the first SOB who did not comply with the law. Clay would have worked it out.

Clay is also a slave holder that disliked slavery, but a moderate one who favored emancipation only by states (not by the federal government) and creation of ex-slave colonies. He did not like abolitionists stirring the pot. He did will his slaves free when he died. He was in the middle of the road for slavery expansion. In fact his American system was concerned more with improving the existing states than expanding west to Texas , Oregon country, and Mexico which the Democrats wanted. And at 1832, the Missouri Compromise was still in place, being held.

The South still holds clout in the Senate, slave holding states are on equal with non-slave states.

For this, the South while on edge will go with Clay. If there is any secession it is out of South Carolina. So if Clay is POTUS and SC secedes in 1833 then what? He would first use diplomatic skill to persuade them back. But then what? He might just let them go? Pressure would definitely be on him to bring them back in by force. The other southern states, may actually go along with him on this, agree that the South is out of line.
It would make things interesting no doubt though.

But again, I doubt that SC secedes in 1830's as Clay would have worked it out with Calhoun. Just like he did OTL when Jackson was POTUS.
 

Skallagrim

Banned
Is that certain? The 12th Amendment refers to "the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three". If Jackson is dead, does he still count as a "person"?

There is no legal process in place for this scenario, even today. Brian C. Kalt, law professor at Michigan State University, is one person who has been very focused on this topic. He argues that if one of the top three candidates during a contingent election dies while the process is underway, there is no formal way to replace the candidate. He expects total chaos if it happens.

The example of Greeley, however, casts some doubt on Kalt's position: in that case, votes for Greeley were allowed, but unless both Houses of Congress agreed to their validity, they would simply not be counted. If we go with the Greeley process, then, it would mean that the dead candidate would still be one of the top three candidates, but if at least one House majority objects to those votes, they'd be ignored, and the contest would suddenly be between the two other candidates.

Granted, if this were to happen today, Congress would be likely to ignore the precedent set by Greeley's example, and just pass an emergency law to regulate the matter. (Kalt has suggested a law that would automatically replace the dead candidate with his running mate.) That's how things currently stand, as of 2017.

But then... we must consider that this is 1824, and Greeley's precedent was in OTL only set in 1872. And it only involved three votes, which made "if one house onjects we'll just ignore those three" a bit more sensible. In 1824, Jackson at least had a real shot. Even though he is dead, there will be vocal supporters of his who want to either vote for him on the basis that "dead president-elect = his vice-president-elect becomes president-elect", OR will want to pass an emergency law that sees a dead candidate in a case like this automatically replaced with his running mate.

Incidentally, that running mate was... John C. Calhoun.

I don't see a Calhoun presidency emerging from this, but one has to wonder how Congress solves this. I think the Greeley "solution" (allow votes for dead Jackson, but don't count them is one house's majority objects) is off the table here. We're probably talking about more than three stray votes, here, after all. So it's either:

-- "allow votes for Jackson" (which are really votes for Calhoun);

-- "replace Jackson with Calhoun" (which amounts to the same), or;

-- "decide dead people can't be voted for, and let Clay compete".


The thing is, @DanMcCollum assumed the third option would occur automatically. I think it's actually the least likely option. If Adams can get his allies in Congress to go that path, he'll be accused of... "a corrupt bargain"! Calhoun will charge that he has colluded with Clay to give Clay a shot, in the process disenfranchising all Jackson voters. It'll allow Calhoun to turn Jackson into a betrayed martyr. If anything, this road would just be bad politics.

It's much easier for Adams to just approach Clay, offer him any position in the cabinet he desires & full support for the American System, on the grounds that Clay makes no fuss and accepts that he's not in the running. That way, Adams and Clay can unite their supporters in the house to all vote for Adams. The Jackson/Calhoun ticket (regardless of whether the votes formally go to Jackson or to Calhoun) still gets to participate, but Calhoun isn't Jackson, and cannot win.

This is smarter for Adams: if he lets Clay contest, he's letting in a more dangerous rival than "dead Jackson and his replacement, Calhoun". Clay was willing to go for a deal like this in OTL, so it'll work. And the best part: Calhoun was allowed to participate, so he can't call it a corrupt bargain. If he does, Adams and Clay can just say that they COULD have tried to push him out altogether, but didn't. They'll come across as honest, and Calhoun will seem like a sour grape.

This is why I'm fairly confident that, had this situation arisen in 1824, Clay would not have been in the running anyway (but would still have gotten most of what he wanted).
 
Last edited:

Skallagrim

Banned
I think that it is a little too early for secession talk. South Carolina maybe, but for the whole South, probably too early.

I fully admit that I'm typically inclined to seek out the more "interesting" outcomes, so perhaps I am overestimating the potential for this explosive outcome. On the other hand, one must not underestimate it, either. Consider that Adams is not a president hamstrung by Jackson's accusations, here. Nor is he a one-term president. He has eight years to roll out his plans. You rightly point out that at this time "the South still holds clout in the Senate". True, but we must keep in mind that the whole outline I presented relies on my belief that Clay will (convince Adams to) reel in the western states, including "southern" ones like Kentucky and Tennessee. So... I'm not so sure the southern bloc can count on a majority (or even on "equal numbers") in this scenario.

Going from the post I placed above a bit earlier (admittedly, long after your post to which I'm now replying), my scenario would involve Calhoun being very angry with Adams and Clay. Interestingly, Calhoun was also Adams's running mate (as well as Jackson's), due to the intricacies of the Democratic-Republican party being essentially the only party. I think that an infuriated Calhoun would at some point in Adams's first term resign the vice presidency, so he can be the opposition leader. Adams and Clay will paint him as a sour grape.

So what I'm expecting is a particularly acrimonious dispute between the adinistration and Calhoun's opposition. And Calhoun will almost certainly lose in 1828, which would increase his resentment. In the meantime, the American System is being implemented, and by 1832, the west is firmly on board for a Clay presidency. With western support, the administration has enjoyed a majority, thus allowing Adams and Clay to raise tarriffs etc. during the preceding eight years. And all the while, the south will have become ever more embittered and furious-- but powerless to block the administration's policies.

All this makes Calhoun the south's logical frontman. It won't just be South Carolina. It was South Carolina in OTL, but in this ATL, the south has watched for eight years how Adams and Clay have implemented policies that the south considers abominable. And with Adams and Clay taking the west, they have reduced the southern bloc to a minority. Under such circumstances, I hardly think that it would just be SC up in arms. Unrest will have been building for eight long years, and then Clay (that "traitor", who "stole the west" and "gave it to northern interests") becomes president while the southern bloc has clearly voted for Calhoun and rejected everything Clay stands for.

I really think that'll be more like OTL 1860 than like OTL's nullification crisis.


ITTL, Clay may very well compromise with Calhoun on the tariffs. In fact OTL, that is exactly what he did in OTL 1833, Clay worked with Calhoun to end the nullification crisis. Clay was not as bombastic as Jackson to threaten to go down to South Carolina and hang the first SOB who did not comply with the law. Clay would have worked it out.

Perhaps you are right, and Clay could have done this even given the above. He was very good at making deals, after all. Yet my considerations are as follows: under the conditions I have outlined, Calhoun and his southern allies will be very angry indeed. hey're not going to accept "a bit of a lowering of the tarriff". They'll demand a substantial lowering. On the opposite side, Clay has just been elected in his owen right. Together with Adams, he's been working towards his own ideal for the USA, and he's gotten quite close. If he surrenders to Calhoun's demands now, he'll have no way to finance his American System. Instead of finishing his great work, into which he's just put eight years, he'll have to watch how it begins to crumble. He'll be a lame duck of a president, and Calhoun will be having a good laugh. (And under these circumstances, Clay and Calhoun will have been bietter enemies for eight years-- more so than in OTL.)

Basically, and offer Calhoun makes will be unacceptable to Clay, and any offer Clay makes will be unacceptable to Calhoun. So I think it's going to a lot like 1860, whereto we can now look back, and see things like the Corwin Amendement and the Crittenden Compromise, and think "how can they not have worked this out?" -- I think thst by the time tensions have reached a certain point, and battle lines have been drawn, compromise becomes extremely difficult. Calhoun was in TL willing to make a deal because SC stood alone, Jackson was threatening to send in the army, and Clay offered something Calhoun could present as a victory. And Clay was willing to deal because his American System wasn't anywhere near being implemented anyway, and he really had nothing to lose (and a lot to gain) from being the man who resolved the crisis.

This ATL situation is just going to be very different. I don't see this being so easily resolved.


Clay is also a slave holder that disliked slavery, but a moderate one who favored emancipation only by states (not by the federal government) and creation of ex-slave colonies. He did not like abolitionists stirring the pot. He did will his slaves free when he died. He was in the middle of the road for slavery expansion. In fact his American system was concerned more with improving the existing states than expanding west to Texas , Oregon country, and Mexico which the Democrats wanted. And at 1832, the Missouri Compromise was still in place, being held.

The South still holds clout in the Senate, slave holding states are on equal with non-slave states.

For this, the South while on edge will go with Clay.

Let's keep in mind that in this ATL, the secession crisis has nothing to do with slavery. This time, it's actually about tarriffs and "states' rights"-related issues. As far as Clay's position is concerned, he'll be seen in the south as the man who delivered Kentucky and Tennessee to Adams. If anything, the south will see him as a traitor. Calhoun will certainly play that up.


If there is any secession it is out of South Carolina. So if Clay is POTUS and SC secedes in 1833 then what? He would first use diplomatic skill to persuade them back. But then what? He might just let them go? Pressure would definitely be on him to bring them back in by force. The other southern states, may actually go along with him on this, agree that the South is out of line.

I have argued why I think it's actually more likely for multiple southern states to secede (or at least threaten to). With the south feeling the heat (of becoming a permanent minority), and with Clay being... not a big fan of westward expansion, Calhoun could promise the southern states "an independent confederacy", free to expand into Mexico (i.e. Texas). I don't think the south is going to back Clay over Calhoun. Even if I'm overestimating the number of states willing to go with SC, the rest of the south will be neutral at best: ideologically inclined to back Calhoun, but perhaps wary to secede outright. But as I have argued, a diplomatic solution will be difficult, if not outright impossible. Just letting SC go would actually be the smartest option ("good riddance, guys!"), but I doubt that would be seen as acceptable. So Clay will - just as you say - be under pressure to intervene with force. If he does, that'll probably "prove" to several southern states that Calhoun was right, prompting them to secede as well.


But to be fair to Clay's skill at devising creative solutions, here's a solution for you: what if Clay convinces Congress to actually pass a secession amendement, providing criteria for a state to secede? But then the amendment has rather stringent criteria like "two thirds of the state legislature must approve, and a pleibiscite must be held to confirm..." -- what then? He can tell SC, and the rest of the south, that any state willing to secede must adhere to this amendment. Including SC. If Calhoun refuses, Clay has a legal pretext to use force against SC, because the state seceded illegally, and other southern states might just let it pass. If Calhoun agrees, then SC undergoes the procedure, and either the secessionists lose and Calhoun is disgraced, or they win and SC secedes and Clay can say "oh, well, too bad"... and grin like a maniac, because thrice-damned Calhoun is a citizen of a foreign country now...

(I don't think that solution is particularly likely, but I do think it's even more interesting than an "early Civil War".)
 
Last edited:
Is that certain? The 12th Amendment refers to "the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three". If Jackson is dead, does he still count as a "person"?

Hmm. The three who received the most electoral votes were Jackson, Adams, and Crawford. That's now a historical fact, and Jackson's death does not change it. But the sentence says "having the highest numbers", which is in the present tense. Jackson is dead - does he still "have" those electoral votes?

Clay may indeed become eligible.
 
I fully admit that I'm typically inclined to seek out the more "interesting" outcomes, so perhaps I am overestimating the potential for this explosive outcome. On the other hand, one must not underestimate it, either. Consider that Adams is not a president hamstrung by Jackson's accusations, here. Nor is he a one-term president. He has eight years to roll out his plans.

Why this unquestioned assumption that Adams would be re-elected? I see no basis for it. Jackson is gone, but there are other figures who could rise up to lead Jackson's faction.


You rightly point out that at this time "the South still holds clout in the Senate". True, but we must keep in mind that the whole outline I presented relies on my belief that Clay will (convince Adams to) reel in the western states, including "southern" ones like Kentucky and Tennessee. So... I'm not so sure the southern bloc can count on a majority (or even on "equal numbers") in this scenario.

Going from the post I placed above a bit earlier (admittedly, long after your post to which I'm now replying), my scenario would involve Calhoun being very angry with Adams and Clay. Interestingly, Calhoun was also Adams's running mate (as well as Jackson's), due to the intricacies of the Democratic-Republican party being essentially the only party. I think that an infuriated Calhoun would at some point in Adams's first term resign the vice presidency...

He didn't OTL, despite the even more controversial election of Adams
So what I'm expecting is a particularly acrimonious dispute between the administration and Calhoun's opposition. And Calhoun will almost certainly lose in 1828...

Would Calhoun really be the candidate of the Jacksonians?

In the meantime, the American System is being implemented...

What makes you certain that Adams and Clay will have a solid majority in Congress?

...the southern bloc has clearly voted for Calhoun and rejected everything Clay stands for.

Define "the Southern Bloc". Clay had support in many slave states, both in 1832 and 1844.

Let's keep in mind that in this ATL, the secession crisis has nothing to do with slavery. This time, it's actually about tariffs and "states' rights"-related issues.

It was never not about slavery. The whole reason for Southern extremism about "states rights" was the belief that slave states had to have absolutely unquestioned internal power to maintain slavery. Anything which was even a potential check or limit on that power was viewed as an existential threat. Consider the history of South Carolina's Negro Seamen Act, enacted in the wake of the Denmark Vesey conspiracy. A Federal judge struck it down as contradictory to a treaty with Great Britain (per the Supremacy Clause), but South Carolina ignored the ruling. This was in the 1820s.

Calhoun himself wrote that the tariff dispute of 1828-1832 was merely "a skirmish on the outworks" - the actual citadel being slavery.
 
Top