WI: Northern Secession Crisis… in 1843?

Alternatives to the American Civil War are often discussed on this board. Usually in the form of some Southern victory scenario, sometimes through attempts to see the war fought earlier or later, and very occasionally through a scenario where the North secedes instead of the South. It’s that last one that really interests me, because it is surprisingly rare. When one does come across it, one discovers it usually presents in one of two flavors. The first one is a different 1860 election, which (possibly because it’s thrown to the House) results in a Southern candidate being elected even though not a single northern county voted for such a candidate. And then the North bolts. The other and far more convincing flavor is the “different Dred Scott decision”. Essentially, Taney goes way off the reservation in 1856 and manages to produce a verdict that forces all states to allow slavery. And as a result… the free states secede.

We’ve seen these scenarios before. But Dred Scott v. Sandford wasn’t the only contentious case with the potential to really foul things up. Fourteen years earlier, in 1842, there was the Prigg v. Pennsylvania decision. This pertained to the various Northern Nullification Acts (more popularly known as “Personal Liberty Laws”) that existed in the free states. These laws served to nullify not only federal legislation (the Fugitive Slave Act) but also a provision of the Constitution itself: Article IV, Section 2, Clause 3 (the so-called Fugitive Slave Clause). With the Prigg v. Pennsylvania decision, the Supreme Court ruled that those laws were unconstitutional. Several Northern states (specifically: Pennsylvania, New York, Ohio and Vermont) blithely ignored the ruling, and passed further personal liberty laws.

Legally, these states were doing the exact same thing as South Carolina had done in the 1830s when it threatened to threatened to nullify federal tariff acts and prevent them from being enforced within its borders. In fact, the northern states went further, since they actually did it instead of just threatening. Interestingly, South Carolina’s attempt to nullify was met with threats of brute force: president Andrew Jackson left no uncertainty that he would employ the military against South Carolina if the state went ahead with the nullification— and South Carolina gave up without a fight, knowing it could not win. The Northern Nullification Acts, on the other hand, never led the Federal Government to threaten the states involved with military force. President John Tyler completely ignored the issue, instead of taking a strong stance against nullification like Jackson had done a decade earlier. The Northern States essentially got away with it.

They had Tyler to thank for it. For starters, he was a strong believer in the doctrine of states’ rights, and was not at all inclined to use military force to coerce a state for any reason whatsoever. Furthermore, his own political position was precarious: William Henry Harrison had died within a month of his inauguration, and Tyler (Harrison’s vice president) was… not popular. Even though he was, legally speaking, clearly Harrison's successor, people still argued over whether he was only acting as president or if he really was president. Tyler, not inclined to rock the boat and personally sympathetic to the idea of nullification, gave the Northern states a lot of leeway.

But Tyler was only president for want of a coat. William Henry Harrison had refused to wear one during his inauguration address on March 4th, 1841—an extremely chilly day—and had caught a severe cold… which killed him within a month. Hence: president Tyler. But what if Harrison had decided to wear a coat, had survived, and had thus been president in the early 1840s instead of Tyler? Harrison was exactly the sort of man to take a strong stance against nullification.

Moreover, Harrison would have supported the Clay Tariff Bill with enthousiasm. (Tyler was reluctant IOTL, postponing the legislation and using his presidential veto to prevent Henry Clay from coupling the tariff hike with a public land disbursement package.) The new tariff would have passed in 1841 (a year earlier than IOTL), and the bill would have included Clay’s provisions for the disbursement of public lands in the West. The South would be in uproar— and then, the next year, the Prigg v. Pennsylvania decision would come around. For Harrison, it would be a great opportunity to mollify the South, and it would be in line with his own view of legality anyway. So let us assume that he would throw his full support behind the Supreme Court, declaring that the decision is clear: slaveowners have the right to recover slaves which have escaped into States which have abolished slavery, and state laws that interfere with the recovery of those slaves are unconstitutional. As such, Harrison would decide that the Federal Government would be obligated to enforce the ruling by all means necessary.

Would that stop the Northern states? Nope. In early 1843, as IOTL, several Northern states would still pass new Personal Liberty Laws, in defiance of the Prigg v. Pennsylvania decision. They would exploit—as they did IOTL—the exact wording of the ruling, which stated that although Federal law supersedes state law, states are not required to dedicate means to the enforcement of Federal laws. As such, the new Personal Liberty Laws would simply order all state officials to refrain from enforcing the Fugitive Slave Act and Article IV, Section 2, Clause 3 of the Constitution. Escaped slaves would simply not be apprehended by State law enforcement officials.

Harrison, being Harrison, would not let this slide like Tyler did IOTL. On the contrary, he would insist that states must obey Federal law and the Constitution— and not only the letter, but the spirit of the law. The Northern states would not take kindly to that position, and they would continue to ignore Federal law. Unlike South Carolina in the 1830s, this would not be one state against the whole Union. This would be four states combined in their resistance, and enjoying the sympathy of the entire North. Cries of “Southern tyranny” would resound widely, and the North would increasingly see the matter as an issue of principle.

There is exactly one way a man like Harrison would respond to such a situation: by enforcing the supremacy of the Federal government and the Constitution over the states. In other words: he would call for the mobilization of troops to cow the uppity Northern states into obedience. It worked for Jackson, he would reason, so it was a proven method.

From there on out, one can see the matter spiraling out of control fast. The Northern states, feeling bullied and threatened, will no doubt assure Harrison that they have no quarrel with his government, but that they insist their state sovereignty is recognized. Harrison will argue the opposite; that he has no issue with their state sovereignty, as long as they stay within the confines of Federal supremacy. As Federal troops gather in the Upper South, tensions reach a breaking point…


…and the question is: what then? As I see it, there are three alternatives.

Firstly, there is the possibility that Harrison backs down. The Northern states get their way, and history proceeds as IOTL, except that the continent has already had a taste of just how virulent the animosity between North and South can get. This might lead to an earlier conflict, or it might lead to more willingness to reach a compromise in order to avoid a conflict.

Secondly, there is the possibility that the Northern states back down. Harrison gets his way, and Southern interests reign supreme. Fugitive slaves are royally screwed. Result: much resentment in the North, “states’ rights” as a Northern doctrine, and the very real possibility of a more pro-Southern Dred Scott decision down the line… resulting in Northern secession at that time.

Thirdly, there is the possibility I find most captivating: neither side backs down. Northern states refuse to supply troops to subdue Pennsylvania, New York, Ohio and Vermont, a “Second Hartford Convention” is called, and resolutions calling for secession are passed. Shortly thereafter, New York secedes. Other Northern states follow over the next few weeks. By late 1843, all Northern states have sececed from the Union. This scenario is so fascinating because the rump-USA, controlled entirely by Southern interests, would be very unlikely to fight a war over the issue. Harrison would want to, but he’d never get Congress (what’s left of it) behind the idea. The rump-USA would claim all Western territories and be content with that.

Think about it: the Southern elite would have exactly what they always wanted (and what Southern romanticists dream about to this very day): a “Super-South” that includes Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland, Delaware and all Western territories to boot. They’d have rid themselves of all Yankee influence without spilling a drop of blood, easily ensuring their own supremacy for the forseeable future.

It is possibly the only scenario whereby the North-South split occurs without a war erupting in the process. The only man who would desire war over the matter would be Harrison, and Congress would block his efforts. If he tried anyway, he might even get impeached for his trouble, resulting in the presidency of… John Tyler. (There’s irony for you: the man who allowed the North to get away with nullification IOTL would become president because his predecessor would ITTL have allowed the North to “get away” period.)

It seems like a very interesting scenario to me, because most Divided America TLs open with a bloody conflict, leading to resentment between the two nations and huge socio-political and economic consequences directly caused by said conflict. This alternative presents a bloodless separation, which allows one to speculate on just how the antebellum North and the antebellum South might have developed if they had suddenly become separate countries.

Now, forgive me for this rather long post, that seemingly comes out of nowhere. The idea simply occurred to me, and I felt it would be interesting to share it with the board. Maybe I’m completely wrong about something, or maybe you want to speculate further on the points raised here. Maybe you just want to take this premise and turn it into a TL of your own. In any of those cases: go right ahead. :D
 
Last edited:
A TL like that was done (almost to a tee in your scenario.) The end result was the latter choice which ended in a secession by everything North of the Mason-Dixon line, and the South impeaching Harrison for trying to put down the 'rebellion.'

https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=144522

I personally think the scenario is extremely unlikely. I mean, all of the states that might have seceded in your scenario have a combined 161 electoral votes (to the South's 114) so if the North was really so pissed off, they could just vote Harrison out in 1844, and put in somebody who ignores the court. Harrison would really have to be an idiot if he thought he could coerce the majority of the country with a minority of the country (and a minority which didn't really give two sh**ts where the North went). I think for a Northern secession scenario, we would need to go back about 50 years, delay the cotton gin that culminated in slaves getting sucked to the deep South to produce cotton, and have more slave states created out of Indiana and Illinois (Illinois almost did in IOTL). Slave power might be more dominant in TTL United States, leading to eventual Northern secession out of disgust (which would probably be limited to New England, NY, Pennsylvania, and maybe Ohio).
 
Last edited:

TFSmith121

Banned
There's also the fact that Harrison, although

There's also the fact that Harrison, although born in Virginia, was one of those born Unionists (like Scott, for example) who placed loyalty to the nation above sectionalism. I have a hard time seeing him going to war domestically over anything like the posted issue.

He seems to have had a pretty fine understanding of the politics of his day, as well; along with being elected in a landslide, his cabinet was well-balanced from a national sense, with northerners, southerners, and border state secretaries (including Daniel Webster as secretary of state and a Crittenden as attorney general).

It's inventive, but I don't see a careeer military officer/politician, educated liberally (for the time) in the north and south, digging in his heels over something like this.

Best,
 
Last edited:
A TL like that was done (almost to a tee in your scenario.) The end result was the latter choice which ended in a secession by everything North of the Mason-Dixon line, and the South impeaching Harrison for trying to put down the 'rebellion.'

https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=144522

Thanks for the link! I was unaware that this scenario had been worked out in such detail before. It's from way back before I ever started posting on the board. Still, although the POD is very much the same, the author of that TL seems (from what I'm speedreading there) to be somewhat... optimimistic... in regards to the future development of the rump-US. I'd expect to see more crippling problems, and a far more entenched slavocrat elite.


I personally think the scenario is extremely unlikely. I mean, all of the states that might have seceded in your scenario have a combined 161 electoral votes (to the South's 114) so if the North was really so pissed off, they could just vote Harrison out in 1844, and put in somebody who ignores the court. Harrison would really have to be an idiot if he thought he could coerce the majority of the country with a minority of the country (and a minority which didn't really give two sh**ts where the North went). I think for a Northern secession scenario, we would need to go back about 50 years, delay the cotton gin that culminated in slaves getting sucked to the deep South to produce cotton, and have more slave states created out of Indiana and Illinois (Illinois almost did in IOTL). Slave power might be more dominant in TTL United States, leading to eventual Northern secession out of disgust (which would probably be limited to New England, NY, Pennsylvania, and maybe Ohio).

From our perspective, it would all seem very foolish. Then, from our perpective, OTL's secession crisis seems foolish, too. The whole idea here is that only a few Northern states are really pissed off with Harrison, and when tensions rise, they choose to secede. Only when that has already happened do more Northern states follow suit.

I'm not saying it's the most ikely of all scenarios, but in tense situations, strange decisions occasionally get made. It would be an interesting idea to explore. The TL you linked is interesting in that regard, but as far as I've read it, it doesn't really explore the differences between the USA and the "FSA". Or at least it assumes those differences would be relatively minor. I suspect they wouldn't be that minor, and that the two nations would soon be very different (politically, culturally, socially... even their respective spelling and pronunciation might be as different from one another as that of the UK and the US IOTL).


There's also the fact that Harrison, although born in Virginia, was one of those born Unionists (like Scott, for example) who placed loyalty to the nation above sectionalism. I have a hard time seeing him going to war domestically over anything like the posted issue.

He seems to have had a pretty fine understanding of the politics of his day, as well; along with being elected in a landslide, his cabinet was well-balanced from a nation sense, with northerners, southerners, and border state secretaries (including Daniel Webster as secretary of state and a Crittenden as attorney general).

It's inventive, but I don't see a careeer military officer/politician, eduated liberally (for the time) in the north and south, digging in his heels over something like this.

Best,

My reasoning was that he'd be big on Federal supremacy because he was, indeed, a born Unionist. Even reasonable men can get involved in events that lead to drastic consequences. For instance: Lincoln was the president whose election ensured Southern secession IOTL. That hardly had anything to do with Lincoln's actual character, since he was basically one of the most reasonable men who have ever been president. I'm thinking Harrison might be eager to ensure Federal supremacy over the states (in itself not an unreasonable position), which inadvertently leads to escalation. I don't think he'd have given in on the isseu, since he really believed in Federal authority over state sovereignty. But perhaps I'm completely misreading the man.
 
Last edited:
There's also the fact that Harrison, although born in Virginia, was one of those born Unionists (like Scott, for example) who placed loyalty to the nation above sectionalism. I have a hard time seeing him going to war domestically over anything like the posted issue.

He seems to have had a pretty fine understanding of the politics of his day, as well; along with being elected in a landslide, his cabinet was well-balanced from a nation sense, with northerners, southerners, and border state secretaries (including Daniel Webster as secretary of state and a Crittenden as attorney general).

It's inventive, but I don't see a careeer military officer/politician, eduated liberally (for the time) in the north and south, digging in his heels over something like this.

Best,

Besides the court ruling would make it difficult. Unless you change the court ruling the Northern States were within their rights to do what they did. Since the ruling stated "Federal law supersedes state law, states are not required to dedicate means to the enforcement of Federal laws. As such, the new Personal Liberty Laws would simply order all state officials to refrain from enforcing the Fugitive Slave Act and Article IV, Section 2, Clause 3 of the Constitution. Escaped slaves would simply not be apprehended by State law enforcement officials."
 
Besides the court ruling would make it difficult. Unless you change the court ruling the Northern States were within their rights to do what they did. Since the ruling stated "Federal law supersedes state law, states are not required to dedicate means to the enforcement of Federal laws. As such, the new Personal Liberty Laws would simply order all state officials to refrain from enforcing the Fugitive Slave Act and Article IV, Section 2, Clause 3 of the Constitution. Escaped slaves would simply not be apprehended by State law enforcement officials."

Quite true, and I think no sane man will deny that the northern type of nullification (passive nullification) was completely legal, IOTL as ITTL. But that never stopped Southern hotheads from pushing.


Seriously, I thank those who responded for your critical comments. This TL is indeed less plausible than I had thought at first. I still think it could work, however. And I'm still interested in the (cultural) implications of a "bloodless separation" of the North and the South. The TL that was already written based on this POD seems mostly concerned with creating an independent South which is then a bit wanked and somewhat socially idealized. Since the author self-identifies as a Confederate, that is to be expected. That, however, was not my intention with this. So that TL doesn't really go into the kind of socio-cultural speculation I'm looking for.
 
Quite true, and I think no sane man will deny that the northern type of nullification (passive nullification) was completely legal, IOTL as ITTL. But that never stopped Southern hotheads from pushing.


Seriously, I thank those who responded for your critical comments. This TL is indeed less plausible than I had thought at first. I still think it could work, however. And I'm still interested in the (cultural) implications of a "bloodless separation" of the North and the South. The TL that was already written based on this POD seems mostly concerned with creating an independent South which is then a bit wanked and somewhat socially idealized. Since the author self-identifies as a Confederate, that is to be expected. That, however, was not my intention with this. So that TL doesn't really go into the kind of socio-cultural speculation I'm looking for.

The problem here is Harrison wasn't a Fire Eater and he has no basis for sending troops. If he tried that you are far more likely to see impeachment than secession.
 
The point is not that Harrison is more pro-slavery (he's not), but that he is far more pro-Federal Supremacy. And that some of his policies would make him unpopular in the South, which might very well lead to his trying to curry favor there by pushing a few northern states about their personal freedom laws.

I do wonder if people do not underestimate the possibility of escalation. Harrison wouldn't be trying to drive the states in question to drastic steps, he'd really consider himself to be in the right about this. He was a nationalist, who truly felt that nullification was a perverse doctrine. Once he got into it, my personal view of him also leads me to think he'd not be likely to just back down.

He wouldn't just send troops or something, but he'd make it clear that he'd enforce the fugitive slave act.

The Personal Liberty Laws didn't simply state that state authorities were not to cooperate in the capture and return of fugitives. They also contained other provisions, such as guarantees of jury trial for escaped slaves (which Prigg v. Pennsylvania had ruled unconstitutional). Most importantly, they forbade (or made it exceedingly difficult for) state authorities to recognize claims to fugitive slaves.

A believer in Federal supremacy, regardless of his thoughts on slavery, would consider such provisions to be violations of the Constitution and of Federal law. The South IOTL certainly maintained that position, but Tyler did nothing about it. The question is: would Harrison? I'd wager yes, he would. If the states were unwilling to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act, he'd sent Federal law enforcement officers to do it. If these were hindered by state claims to have trials by jury for fugitives, or state refusal to recognize the claims as valid... the situation could easily escalate.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Given that the antebellum unionists spent most of their

Given that the antebellum unionists spent most of their careers trying to avoid any action that would inflame the sectional crisis, I just don't see it.

There's a reason the word "doughface" was thrown around...

Best,
 
Harrison was a nationalist but as a Whig he was also a believer in a limited federal executive. He would say that if the law of 1793 Act as interpreted in *Prigg*was ineffective it was up to Congress to pass a stronger law.

Remember that Story had written in *Prigg* "As to the authority so conferred upon state magistrates [to deal with runaway slaves], while a difference of opinion has existed, and may exist still on the point, in different states, whether state magistrates are bound to act under it; none is entertained by this Court that state magistrates may, if they choose, exercise that authority, unless prohibited by state legislation."
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Excellent point

There is something of the "John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!" element of presidential power in this era.

Best,
 
Top