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.
